linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

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, 28 Jan 2009 12:13:47 -0600
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 12:55 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:44:14AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > If others disagree, and using bitops is not an idea which will fly, I'd
> > sure like to know sooner rather than later.
> 
> There are more than enough use cases that have large numbers of open
> files (e.g. various high-end network servers).  While it might not be
> as sewer as for inodes I think it's really bad idea to do it for no
> reason. 

Maybe we can just demote f_ep_lock to f_lock and share it? 

Or extend flags and have two independent bitlocks in it. This actually
shrinks struct_file for most users.

-- 
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux


--
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/