linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] nfsd/sunrpc: add support for a workqueue-based nfsd

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:	Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:29:37 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.com>,
	Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] nfsd/sunrpc: add support for a workqueue-based nfsd

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Linus, do you see any problems with the following patch (against the mainline)?

Not concpetually, but create_kthread() uses CLONE_FS, and I don't
think it's just umask that things like nfsd want to avoid sharing.
What about all the *other* fields?

Just as an example: even if all the threads actually end up all having
the same global root, what about contention on 'fs->lock'?

I have *not* looked at the details, and maybe there's some reason I'm
completely off, but it worries me.

                      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/