linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC, PATCH] fs: push rcu_barrier() from deactivate_locked

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: <20120608222533.GS30000@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jun 2012 23:25:33 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
	Tao Ma <boyu.mt@...bao.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
	v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
	codalist@...a.cs.cmu.edu, ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org,
	osd-dev@...n-osd.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, logfs@...fs.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
	reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] fs: push rcu_barrier() from
 deactivate_locked_super() to filesystems

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:06:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> .. hmm. I think you may be right. Even if we do move it up, we
> probably shouldn't use it.
> 
> We don't even want SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, since we do the delayed RCU
> free for other reasons anyway, so it would duplicate the RCU delaying
> and cause problems. I forgot about that little complication.
> 
> We could have a separate "RCU_BARRIER_ON_DESTROY" thing, but that's
> just silly too.

Why not make that rcu_barrier() in there unconditional?  Where are
we creating/destroying caches often enough for that to become a problem?
--
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