linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V6 for-6.11/block] loop: Fix a race between loop detach and loop open

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:00:44 +0000
From: Gulam Mohamed <gulam.mohamed@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC: "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "yukuai1@...weicloud.com" <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk"
	<axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V6 for-6.11/block] loop: Fix a race between loop detach
 and loop open



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 1:57 PM
> To: Gulam Mohamed <gulam.mohamed@...cle.com>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>; linux-block@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; yukuai1@...weicloud.com; axboe@...nel.dk
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 for-6.11/block] loop: Fix a race between loop detach
> and loop open
> 
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 08:21:35AM +0000, Gulam Mohamed wrote:
> > > To: Gulam Mohamed <gulam.mohamed@...cle.com>
> > > Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > > yukuai1@...weicloud.com; hch@....de; axboe@...nel.dk
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 for-6.11/block] loop: Fix a race between loop
> > > detach and loop open
> > >
> > > Do we need the re-addition of the open method to fix the ltp test
> > > case?  I kinda hate it, but if that is what it takes:
> > >
> > I don't think its needed but I kept it because your following comment in the
> suggested change says " switch the state to roundown here to prevent new
> openers from coming in":
> 
> Let's keep it.  I meant to say new I/O coming in, but letting a new opener
> come in and then fail I/O isn't really nice behavior.
Thanks Christoph.

Regards,
Gulam Mohamed.