linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] make last_inode counter in new_inode 32-bit on kernels that offer x86 compatability

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: <20061107161004.GS27140@parisc-linux.org>
Date:	Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:10:05 -0700
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	J?rn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make last_inode counter in new_inode 32-bit on kernels that offer x86 compatability

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 10:56:06AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
>  retry:
> -	if (counter > max_reserved) {
> -		head = inode_hashtable + hash(sb,counter);
> -		res = counter++;
> +	if (sb->s_lastino >= max_reserved) {
> +		head = inode_hashtable + hash(sb,++sb->s_lastino);
> +		res = sb->s_lastino;

I think it'd be clearer to write this as:

		res = ++sb->s_lastino;
		head = inode_hashtable + hash(sb, res);

My eye skipped over the preincrement entirely the way it's currently
written.

>  		inode = find_inode_fast(sb, head, res);
>  		if (!inode) {
>  			spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
>  			return res;
>  		}
>  	} else {
> -		counter = max_reserved + 1;
> +		 sb->s_lastino = max_reserved;
>  	}
>  	goto retry;
>  	
-
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/