Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760637AbZASO51 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:57:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752663AbZASO5H (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:57:07 -0500 Received: from p02c12o145.mxlogic.net ([208.65.145.78]:53045 "EHLO p02c12o145.mxlogic.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752556AbZASO5F (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:57:05 -0500 Message-ID: <497494BB.3080800@steeleye.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:56:59 -0500 From: Paul Clements User-Agent: Swiftdove 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071116) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek CC: kernel list , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: nbd: add locking to nbd_ioctl References: <20090116115512.GA10771@elf.ucw.cz> <4970A696.9070307@steeleye.com> <20090116153603.GD2022@elf.ucw.cz> <4970B59A.9090807@steeleye.com> <20090119095459.GA11187@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> In-Reply-To: <20090119095459.GA11187@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2009 14:56:59.0798 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E303360:01C97A46] X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; S=0.200(2008120801)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [207.43.68.209] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1469 Lines: 37 Pavel Machek wrote: >> Pavel Machek wrote: >>> On Fri 2009-01-16 10:24:06, Paul Clements wrote: >> lo->sock is only modified under tx_lock (except for SET_SOCK, where the >> device is being initialized, in which case it's impossible for any other >> thread to be accessing the device) > > Well, unless the user is evil or confused? :-). Even in that case, you're just going to get EBUSY. Nothing bad will happen. SET_SOCK checks for lo->file, so it cannot be called on an active nbd device. >> As for other fields, I assume you're talking about blksize, et al. >> Taking tx_lock doesn't prevent you from screwing yourself if you modify >> those while the device is active. You'd need to disallow those ioctls >> when the device is active (check lo->file). Again, this is only going to >> happen if you really misuse the ioctls. > > Ok, I'll take a look at the missing checks. I'd really like to make > this "stable" -- no amount of misuse should crash the kernel. Just to summarize, I don't think we need to hold tx_lock around the entirety of nbd_ioctl. We do need one extra tx_lock around xmit_timeout and we do need to check for lo->file and return EBUSY in all of the SET_*SIZE* ioctls. Thanks, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/