[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: nbd: add locking to nbd_ioctl
Pavel Machek wrote:
>> 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.
> I could do that but it would be a bit too complex, and still rely on
> big kernel lock. Would you agree to patch that added tx_lock around
> all of it, and moved ioctl to unlocked ioctl?

OK, I can buy the complexity argument. Your patch sounds fine to me.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-26 18:05    [W:0.129 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site