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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190801084412.GD25064@quack2.suse.cz> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 10:44:12 +0200 From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] fs: jbd/jbd2: Substitute BH locks for RT and lock debugging On Wed 31-07-19 21:40:42, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, Jan Kara wrote: > > BH_State lock is definitely worth it. In fact, if you placed the spinlock > > inside struct journal_head (which is the structure whose members are in > > fact protected by it), I'd be even fine with just using the spinlock always > > instead of the bit spinlock. journal_head is pretty big anyway (and there's > > even 4-byte hole in it for 64-bit archs) and these structures are pretty > > rare (only for actively changed metadata buffers). > > Just need to figure out what to do with the ASSERT_JH(state_is_locked) case for > UP. Perhaps just return true for UP && !DEBUG_SPINLOCK? Yes, that makes sense. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@...e.com> SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists