linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/15] parallel lookups: actual switch to rwsem

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 Apr 2016 04:31:16 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] parallel lookups: actual switch to rwsem

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 09:02:06PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:

> Wouldn't it make sense to have helpers like "inode_read_lock(inode)" or similar,
> so that it is consistent with other parts of the code and easier to find?
> It's a bit strange to have the filesystems use "inode_lock()" and some places
> here use "inode_lock_nested()", but other places use up_read() and down_read()
> directly on &inode->i_rwsem.  That would also simplify delegating the directory
> locking to the filesystems in the future.

FWIW, my preference would be inode_lock_shared(), but that's bikeshedding;
seeing that we have very few callers at the moment *and* there's the missing
down_write_killable() stuff...  This patch will obviously be reworked and
it's small enough to be understandable, open-coding or not.