On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
> If you mean the test code on link[1], I can't reproduce the
> warning with the two sysfs fix patches in 4 hours's test.
>
> [1], https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2160771/
You are right, looks it is not a problem just in theory, and I can
rep
Hi Zefan,
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
>>> Considered that vfs_read()/vfs_write on sysfs dir is almost doing nothing,
>>> the
>>> above problem may only exist in theory.
>>
>> The read() vs readdir() race in sysfs directory
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
>> Considered that vfs_read()/vfs_write on sysfs dir is almost doing nothing,
>> the
>> above problem may only exist in theory.
>
> The read() vs readdir() race in sysfs directory doesn't exist in theory only.
Could you let me know if you have app
On 2013/3/22 17:31, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
>> On 2013/3/21 12:48, Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it can...As I said, it's irrelevant, because it's vfs that changes
>> file->f_pos.
>>
>> SYSCALL_DEFINE3(read, unsigned int, fd, char __user *, buf, size_t, coun
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2013/3/21 12:48, Ming Lei wrote:
>
> Yes, it can...As I said, it's irrelevant, because it's vfs that changes
> file->f_pos.
>
> SYSCALL_DEFINE3(read, unsigned int, fd, char __user *, buf, size_t, count)
> {
> struct fd f = fdget(fd);
>
On 2013/3/21 12:48, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Li Zefan wrote:
>> On 2013/3/21 11:17, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Li Zefan wrote:
In fact the same race exists between readdir() and read()/write()...
>>>
>>> Fortunately, no read()/write(
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2013/3/21 11:17, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Li Zefan wrote:
>>>
>>> In fact the same race exists between readdir() and read()/write()...
>>
>> Fortunately, no read()/write() are implemented on sysfs directory, :-)
>>
On 2013/3/21 11:17, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Li Zefan wrote:
>>
>> In fact the same race exists between readdir() and read()/write()...
>
> Fortunately, no read()/write() are implemented on sysfs directory, :-)
>
That's irrelevant...
See my report:
https://patchwork
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Li Zefan wrote:
>
> In fact the same race exists between readdir() and read()/write()...
Fortunately, no read()/write() are implemented on sysfs directory, :-)
Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
On 2013/3/20 23:25, Ming Lei wrote:
> While readdir() is running, lseek() may set filp->f_pos as zero,
> then may leave filp->private_data pointing to one sysfs_dirent
> object without holding its reference counter, so the sysfs_dirent
> object may be used after free in next readdir().
>
> This pa
While readdir() is running, lseek() may set filp->f_pos as zero,
then may leave filp->private_data pointing to one sysfs_dirent
object without holding its reference counter, so the sysfs_dirent
object may be used after free in next readdir().
This patch holds inode->i_mutex to avoid the problem si
11 matches
Mail list logo
