linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add new spin_lock for i_flags of xfs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20060824190519m-saito@mail.aom.tnes.nec.co.jp>
Date:	Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:05:19 +0900
From:	Masayuki Saito <m-saito@...s.nec.co.jp>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Nathan Scott <nathans@....com>, David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
	xfs@....sgi.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add new spin_lock for i_flags of xfs_inode [try #2]

Thank you for your comment.

Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:12:51 +0900
>Masayuki Saito <m-saito@...s.nec.co.jp> wrote:
>
>> It is the problem that i_flags of xfs_inode has no consistent
>> locking protection.
>> 
>> For the reason, I define a new spin_lock(i_flags_lock) for i_flags
>> of xfs_inode.  And I add this spin_lock for appropriate places.
>
>You could simply use inode.i_lock for this.  i_lock is a general-purpose
>per-inode lock.  Its mandate is "use it for whatever you like, but it must
>always be `innermost'"
>

I think that inode.i_lock isn't appropriate for this case.
Because there is the situation that no inode is attached to an xfs_inode.


Masayuki
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/