linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i

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:	Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:13:10 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:37:52PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 	* invalidate_inodes() - collect I_FREEING/I_WILL_FREE on a separate
> list, then (after we'd evicted the stuff we'd decided to evict) wait until
> they get freed by whatever's freeing them already.

Note that we would only have to do this for the umount case.  For others
it's pretty pointless.

But I think there's a better way to do it, and that's per-sb inode lru
lists.  By adopting the scheme from prune_dcache we'd always have
s_umount exclusive for inode reclaims, and per defintion we would not
have any ongoing reclaim when we do enter umount.  It would also allow
us to get rid of iprune_sem and the nasty unsolved locking issues it
causes.

--
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/