linux-ext4 - [PATCH RFC 0/5] Eliminate most lock

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1240717765-16572-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu>
Date:	Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:49:20 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Eliminate most lock_super() calls from ext4


On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:40:47PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> ext3/4 internal bits?  Doesn't seem to be used for any journal related
> activity but mostly as protection against resizing (the whole lock_super
> usage in ext3/4 looks odd to me, interestingly there's none at all in
> ext2.  Maybe someone of the extN crowd should audit and get rid of it in
> favour of a better fs-specific lock)

Here are some patches which eliminate most of the lock_super() and
unlock_super() calls from ext4.  The last remaining calls are designed
to proect against another CPU calling write_super(), which is the
original intended use.   

If these patches work out, we can backport these patches to ext3.

Comments and review appreciated; thanks!!

						- Ted

--
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