linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 29/30] fs: track whether the i_version has been queried with an 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87wpc5lxg6.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date:   Sat, 04 Mar 2017 11:03:53 +1100
From:   NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 29/30] fs: track whether the i_version has been queried with an i_state flag

On Wed, Dec 21 2016, Jeff Layton wrote:

> @@ -2072,7 +2093,12 @@ inode_cmp_iversion(const struct inode *inode, const u64 old)
>  static inline bool
>  inode_iversion_need_inc(struct inode *inode)
>  {
> -	return true;
> +	bool ret;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> +	ret = inode->i_state & I_VERS_BUMP;
> +	spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> +	return ret;
>  }
>  

I know this code gets removed, so this isn't really important.
By why do you take the spinlock here?  What are you racing again?

Thanks,
NeilBrown

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)