linux-ext4 - Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

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]

Message-Id: <20070710222209.5078e20b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:22:09 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	cmm@...ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:05:27 +1000 Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:

> 
> It just occurred to me:
> 
>  If i_version is 64bit, then knfsd would need to be careful when
>  reading it on a 32bit host.  What are the locking rules?
> 
>  Presumably it is only updated under i_mutex protection, but having to
>  get i_mutex to read it would seem a little heavy handed.
> 
>  Should it use a seqlock like i_size?
>  Could we use the same seqlock that i_size uses, or would we need a
>  separate one?
> 

seqlocks are a bit of a pain to use (we've had plenty of deadlocks on the
i_size one).  We could reuse inode.i_lock for this modification.  Its
mandate is "general purpose innermost lock to protect stuff in this inode".


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html