| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:58:12 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@...eaurora.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Query on shrink list
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 03:39:22PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Hi Al Viro,
>
> Is there is reason we have kept data->found++, if the dentry already there
> in shrink list ?
>
> static enum d_walk_ret select_collect(
> ...
> if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST) {
> data->found++;
> } else {
> ..
>
> If the dentry is already there on shrink list, does it not mean that
> data->found is already non-zero ?
Nope. It can be on *another* shrink list - if two processes are doing
that...
> Can't we just go out from here directly?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists