linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 02/11] fs/proc/vmcore: replace vmcoredd_mutex by vmcore

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]

Message-ID: <Zz2aekArHaIT4JU5@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 16:14:50 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
	Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Eric Farman <farman@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/11] fs/proc/vmcore: replace vmcoredd_mutex by
 vmcore_mutex

On 11/15/24 at 11:04am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 15.11.24 10:32, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 10/25/24 at 05:11pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Let's use our new mutex instead.
> > 
> > Is there reason vmcoredd_mutex need be replaced and integrated with the
> > vmcore_mutex? Is it the reason the concurrent opening of vmcore could
> > happen with the old vmcoredd_mutex?
> 
> Yes, see the next patch in this series. But I consider this valuable on its
> own: there is no need to have two mutexes.
> 
> I can make that clearer in the patch description.

That would be great and more helpful. Because I didn't find the reason
about the lock integration and avoid concurrent opening of vmcore in
cover-letter and logs of the first few patches, I thought there have
been potential problems and the first few patches are used to fix them.