linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fuse: annotate potential data-race in num

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 17:23:56 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: paulmck@...nel.org, 
	"open list:FUSE: FILESYSTEM IN USERSPACE" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: annotate potential data-race in num_background

On Mon, 13 May 2024 at 14:41, Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org> wrote:

> That said, if the reader (fuse_readahead()) can handle possible
> corrupted data, we can mark is with data_race() annotation. Then I
> understand we don't need to mark the write with WRITE_ONCE().

Adding Willy, since the readahead code in fuse is fairly special.

I don't think it actually matters if  "fc->num_background >=
fc->congestion_threshold" returns false positive or false negative,
but I don't have a full understanding of how readahead works.

Willy, can you please look at fuse_readahead() to confirm that
breaking out of the loop is okay if (rac->ra->async_size >=
readahead_count(rac)) no mater what?

Thanks,
Miklos