lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Missing patch from stable [3/7]
    From
    Date

    On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 10:59 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
    > this patch from mainline seems suitable for -stable,

    Willy,

    Thanks for picking up these ecryptfs patches ...but they hardly meet
    _any_ of the -stable rules. In particular:


    - It must be obviously correct and tested.

    It's obvious, but I don't know if it's been tested (or even looked at by
    the maintainer).

    - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.

    Check.

    - It must fix only one thing.

    No, it's a small fix as well as a cleanup.

    - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
    problem..." type thing).

    No, it doesn't seem to bother anybody.

    - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
    marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
    security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
    critical.

    Not critical at all.

    - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how the
    race can be exploited is also provided.

    It's theoretical, I have no idea how it's exploitable, if at all.

    - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
    whitespace cleanups, etc).

    Check.

    - It must follow the Documentation/SubmittingPatches rules.

    Check.

    - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree. Quote the
    respective commit ID in Linus' tree in your patch submission to -stable.

    Check.


    Total: 4/9, not a very convincing score :)

    Thanks,
    Miklos


    >
    > Thanks,
    > Willy
    > --
    >
    > From 8dc4e37362a5dc910d704d52ac6542bfd49ddc2f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
    > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
    > Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:02:04 -0700
    > Subject: ecryptfs: clean up (un)lock_parent
    >
    > dget(dentry->d_parent) --> dget_parent(dentry)
    >
    > unlock_parent() is racy and unnecessary. Replace single caller with
    > unlock_dir().
    >
    > There are several other suspect uses of ->d_parent in ecryptfs...
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
    > Cc: Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@us.ibm.com>
    > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
    > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
    > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
    > ---
    > fs/ecryptfs/inode.c | 13 ++++---------
    > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
    >
    > diff --git a/fs/ecryptfs/inode.c b/fs/ecryptfs/inode.c
    > index 0a13973..c92cc1c 100644
    > --- a/fs/ecryptfs/inode.c
    > +++ b/fs/ecryptfs/inode.c
    > @@ -37,17 +37,11 @@ static struct dentry *lock_parent(struct dentry *dentry)
    > {
    > struct dentry *dir;
    >
    > - dir = dget(dentry->d_parent);
    > + dir = dget_parent(dentry);
    > mutex_lock_nested(&(dir->d_inode->i_mutex), I_MUTEX_PARENT);
    > return dir;
    > }
    >
    > -static void unlock_parent(struct dentry *dentry)
    > -{
    > - mutex_unlock(&(dentry->d_parent->d_inode->i_mutex));
    > - dput(dentry->d_parent);
    > -}
    > -
    > static void unlock_dir(struct dentry *dir)
    > {
    > mutex_unlock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
    > @@ -426,8 +420,9 @@ static int ecryptfs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
    > int rc = 0;
    > struct dentry *lower_dentry = ecryptfs_dentry_to_lower(dentry);
    > struct inode *lower_dir_inode = ecryptfs_inode_to_lower(dir);
    > + struct dentry *lower_dir_dentry;
    >
    > - lock_parent(lower_dentry);
    > + lower_dir_dentry = lock_parent(lower_dentry);
    > rc = vfs_unlink(lower_dir_inode, lower_dentry);
    > if (rc) {
    > printk(KERN_ERR "Error in vfs_unlink; rc = [%d]\n", rc);
    > @@ -439,7 +434,7 @@ static int ecryptfs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
    > dentry->d_inode->i_ctime = dir->i_ctime;
    > d_drop(dentry);
    > out_unlock:
    > - unlock_parent(lower_dentry);
    > + unlock_dir(lower_dir_dentry);
    > return rc;
    > }
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-08 13:13    [W:0.028 / U:0.904 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site