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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox