netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/10] sysfs tagged directories

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: <m1tzhkzald.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:10:06 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] sysfs tagged directories

"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> writes:

> Ah I see it, thanks.

Serge thanks for your productive and detailed reply to this.

> The last question of Al's which went unanswered was
>
>> Excuse me, _what_?  Are you seriously suggesting going through all dentry
>> trees, doing d_move() in each?  I want to see your locking.  It's promising
>> to be worse than devfs had ever been.  Much worse.
>
> I think this is answered in patch 4.  So yeah, it does d_move() in each
> sysfs mount.  It's all done under the sysfs_rename_mutex.  Judging by
> the phrasing of the question, is that not acceptable?

We also have to call sysfs_grab_supers to ensure none of the superblocks
we know about will go away during the rename.  I believe that is the
only locking change from the current code.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html