linux-kernel - Re: [V9fs-developer] [GIT PULL] 9p file system bug fixes for 2.6.35-rc2

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:31:38 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>
Cc:	"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
	V9FS Developers <v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [GIT PULL] 9p file system bug fixes for 
	2.6.35-rc2

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net> wrote:
>
> I think that you need to use the s_vfs_rename_mutex in the super_block
> struct instead of introducing a new rename_lock in the v9fs session.

I actually think it's better to avoid having filesystems muck around
with VFS locking details. Also, I think we get the VFS rename mutex
only for cross-directory renames, and as mentioned, 9p needs locking
even for regular directory renames.

(Also, this way you can have parallel readers - although we could
obviously change the vfs rename mutex into a rw-sem too).

So I do think that keeping the logic private to a 9p-specific lock is
the right solution here.

                 Linus
--
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/