linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] super: use common iterator (Part 2)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <db131c4abf29ea8205d6e761ac8227f5837540b5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:58:29 -0400
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	jack@...e.cz
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mcgrof@...nel.org, hch@...radead.org, 
 david@...morbit.com, rafael@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org,
 pavel@...nel.org,  peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org,
 boqun.feng@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] super: use common iterator (Part 2)

On Fri, 2025-03-28 at 17:15 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
[...]
> +static inline void super_cb_grabbed(struct super_block *sb,
> +				    void (*f)(struct super_block *,
> void *),
> +				    void *arg)
> +{
> +	if (super_lock_excl(sb)) {
> +		bool active = atomic_inc_not_zero(&sb->s_active);
> +		super_unlock_excl(sb);
> +		if (active)
> +			f(sb, arg);
> +		deactivate_super(sb);

I don't think this can be right: if we fail to increment s_active
because it's zero, we shouldn't call deactivate_super(), should we?

Regards,

James