linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/17] fs: Make last_ino, iunique independent of inode

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:	Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:54:42 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/17] fs: Make last_ino, iunique independent of
 inode_lock

On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 02:08:27AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:18:41PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
> > 
> > Before removing the inode_lock, we need to make the last_ino  and iunique
> > counters independent of the inode_lock. last_ino can be trivially converted to
> > an atomic variable, while the iunique counter needs a new lock nested inside
> > the inode_lock to provide the same protection that the inode_lock previously
> > provided.
> 
> Given that last_ino becomes a per-cpu construct only a few patches later
> I think there's no point to make it an atomic_t here - just reorder the
> per-cpu patch before the inode_lock removal.

I wanted to avoid doing any of that until inode_lock is gone, but
perhaps for this one it makes sense. At the very least, I'll merge
the latter two patches into one, and perhaps this one too.


--
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/