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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:04:25 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> To: Alexander Lochmann <alexander.lochmann@...dortmund.de> Cc: Horst Schirmeier <horst.schirmeier@...dortmund.de>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] inode.i_opflags - Usage of two different locking schemes On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 04:35:47PM +0100, Alexander Lochmann wrote: > > > On 05.03.21 16:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > 1) I don't see where i_opflags is being read in ipc/mqueue.c at all, > > either with or without i_rwsem. > > > It is read in fs/dcache.c So why is this unique to the mqueue inode then? It might be helpful to have explicit call stacks in the e-mail, in text form, when you resend to LKML. That's because the HTML file is ***huge*** (1.7Meg), and I'm having trouble with my browser properly rendering it. In any case, the html claims to be showing the counter examples and I'm still stuck on the *example*? Cheers, - Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists