linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/27] Push down BKL to the filesystems (v2)

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:	Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:30:42 +0100
From:	Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
To:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/27] Push down BKL to the filesystems (v2)

On Mon, Nov 02, Christian Borntraeger wrote:

> Am Montag 02 November 2009 11:04:40 schrieb Jan Blunck:
> > During the realtime preemption mini-summit we discussed the entire removal
> >  of the big kernel lock. I've started working on this for some filesystems.
> >  My plan is to push the BKL down to the implementations first and remove it
> >  from there later.
> > 
> > This series is pushing the BKL from do_new_mount() down to the filesystems
> >  and removes it from ext series of filesystems and one other trivial use:
> >  if the BKL is only used in get_sb/fill_super due to the push-down, we just
> >  need to make sure that parallel calls to get_sb/fill_super would race
> >  against each other.
> 
> seems that patch 1 (the pushdown) did not yet made it to the list.

Seems that the CC list was too long because I used get_maintainer.pl together
with git-send-email on this patch ...

> Looking at 
> you diffstat it seems that you only touched fs/*
> 
> There are filesystems in other places, e.g.
> drivers/isdn/capi/capifs.c,
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/inode.c
> or
> arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
> 
> I am really not an expert in filesystems, so my comment might be bogus: My 
> expection was, that a simple pushdown should also affect these filesystems, 
> especially if the filesystems dont use simple_fill_super, no?

D'Oh! You are totally correct. Seems that nothing important outside of fs/
actually requires the BKL since my box is still wor
--
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/