| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:16:13 -0400 From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, devel@...nvz.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Wake up mandatory locks waiter on chmod On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 14:07 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:36:32AM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > I would also prefer a locking scheme that didn't rely on the BKL. That > > > said, except for this race: > > > > I would as well :) But I don't know the locking code good enough to > > start fixing. Besides, even if I send a patch series that handles this, > > I don't think that anyone will accept it, due to "this changes too much > > code", "can you prove you fixed all the places" and so on... > > Several people have expressed interest in a locking scheme for locks.c > (and probably lockd) that doesn't depend on BKL, so I don't think it > would be ignored. But, yes, it would have to be done very carefully; > there have been at least one or two previous attempts that failed. Another long-term project might be to convert the current list of locks into a more scalable structure: something like an rbtree might be more appropriate for really large numbers of locks. Cheers Trond - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists