linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext2/3/4: change 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]

Message-ID: <20090115130154.GA32368@shareable.org>
Date:	Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:01:54 +0000
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Hisashi Hifumi <hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext2/3/4: change i_mutex usage on lseek

Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> Is there any reason you couldn't have just changed generic_file_llseek()
> to do this rather than making identical changes to the individual file
> systems.  I would think this optimization would be safe for any file
> system.

Is it safe on 32-bit systems where 64-bit updates are not atomic?

You may say that doing multiple parallel lseek() calls is undefined
behaviour, so it's ok to end up with file position that none of the
individual lseek() calls asked for.

But if it's undefined behaviour, no programs should be doing parallel
lseek() calls on the same open file, so why optimise it at all?

-- Jamie
--
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