Re: fs: NULL deref in atime_needs_update

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 08:45:37AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > David, Linus, do you see any problems with that?  To me it looks saner
> > that way and as cheap as the current code, but I might be missing something
> > here...
> 
> I'd absolutely love to see this. The memory ordering for the flags
> updates and reading was always really confusing, and I hated how it
> was hidden inside the random access functions. And apparently it
> wasn't just confusing, it was buggy too.
> 
> But I'd love it _more_ if this also means that we can get rid of the
> rmb's, which your patch didn't. Can we? Or does the ordering still
> remain for some other issue?

In __d_entry_type(), you mean?  Should be, along with READ_ONCE() there.
AFAICS, ordering shouldn't be an issue anymore...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux