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]
Date:   Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:04:25 -0500
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <>
To:     Alexander Lochmann <>
Cc:     Horst Schirmeier <>,
        Jan Kara <>, Jan Kara <>,,
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


					- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists