From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Nilay Shroff <nilay@linux.ibm.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] loop: Fix race conditions in loop_validate_file()
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:23:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3161a470-6362-43dd-8cab-c3ca1859d479@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2e6d7e6d-d6e2-4675-abc3-51f21e407ff4@linux.ibm.com>
On 8/24/26 11:06 AM, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> Okay, that makes sense. So it looks like we can't easily get rid
> of loop_validate_mutex. In that case, would it make sense to always
> acquire loop_validate_mutex rather than acquiring it conditionally
> only when the new backing file is a loop device?
>
> I think loop_configure() and loop_change_fd() are control-plane
> operations and are relatively infrequent, so taking
> loop_validate_mutex should not add any noticeable overhead.
> In return, we would have a single locking hierarchy and
> the locking-context annotations would be much simpler and easier
> to reason about.
That's an interesting question. I will look into this.
Thanks,
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-24 20:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-20 19:57 [PATCH 00/13] Improve the loop driver Bart Van Assche
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 01/13] loop: Fix the code for recursion detection Bart Van Assche
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 02/13] loop: Reorder checks in loop_validate_file() Bart Van Assche
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 03/13] loop: Enable context analysis Bart Van Assche
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 04/13] loop: Assign a unique lockdep key to each lo_mutex instance Bart Van Assche
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 05/13] loop: Add more __must_hold() annotations Bart Van Assche
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 06/13] loop: Protect all lo_backing_file accesses with lo->lo_mutex Bart Van Assche
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 07/13] loop: Fix race conditions in loop_validate_file() Bart Van Assche
2026-08-24 6:12 ` Nilay Shroff
2026-08-24 16:15 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-08-24 18:06 ` Nilay Shroff
2026-08-24 20:23 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 08/13] loop: Remove memory barriers Bart Van Assche
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 09/13] loop: Split loop_change_fd() Bart Van Assche
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 10/13] loop: Split loop_configure() Bart Van Assche
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 11/13] loop: Remove the "bool global" function argument Bart Van Assche
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 12/13] loop: Modify the loop_process_work() calling convention Bart Van Assche
2026-08-20 19:57 ` [PATCH 13/13] loop: Add __guarded_by() annotations Bart Van Assche
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3161a470-6362-43dd-8cab-c3ca1859d479@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nilay@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.