linux-kernel - Re: rename() contention (BUG?)

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

Message-ID: <4541267C.8040004@argo.co.il>
Date:	Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:19:56 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...o.co.il>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Josef Sipek <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu>, lkml@...garu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rename() contention (BUG?)

Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:43:34PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
>> The changes make the mutex more efficient, but won't decrease the 
>> contention.  It seems that all renames in one filesystem are serialized, 
>> and if the renames require I/O (which is certainly the case with nfs), 
>> rename throughput is severely limited.
>>     
>
> 	They are, and for a good reason.  For details see
> Documentation/filesystems/directory-locking.
>   

Is it possible to lock only the common subtree of the two paths?

Perhaps walk towards the root of the tree, starting with the deeper 
path, locking one component at a time.  Then walk both paths together 
locking components ordered by something to avoid deadlock.

-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

-
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/