linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/8] revoke: inode revoke lock V7

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:02:30 +0200 (EET)
From:	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
cc:	alan@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/8] revoke: inode revoke lock V7

Hi Jonathan,

(Thanks for the review!)

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> This is a relatively minor detail in the rather bigger context of this
> patch, but...
> 
> > @@ -642,6 +644,7 @@ struct inode {
> >  	struct list_head	inotify_watches; /* watches on this inode */
> >  	struct mutex		inotify_mutex;	/* protects the watches list */
> >  #endif
> > +	wait_queue_head_t	i_revoke_wait;
> 
> That seems like a relatively hefty addition to every inode in the system
> when revoke - I think - will be a fairly rare operation.  Would there be
> any significant cost to using a single, global revoke-wait queue instead
> of growing the inode structure?

No, that's a good idea. I'll change it for the next patchset. Thanks!

                       Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/