linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Consolidate sleeping routines in file locking code

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: <20070919183703.GE5946@fieldses.org>
Date:	Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:37:03 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Consolidate sleeping routines in file locking code

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 05:41:08PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> This is the next step in fs/locks.c cleanup before turning
> it into using the struct pid *. 
> 
> This time I found, that there are some places that do a
> similar thing - they try to apply a lock on a file and go 
> to sleep on error till the blocker exits.
> 
> All these places can be easily consolidated, saving 28 
> lines of code and more than 600 bytes from the .text,
> but there is one minor note. 

I'm not opposed to consolidating this code, but would it be possible to
do so in a more straightforward way, without passing in a callback
function?  E.g. a single __posix_lock_file_wait that just took an inode
instead of a filp and called __posix_lock_file() could be called from
both posix_lock_file_wait() and locks_mandatory_locked, right?

> The locks_mandatory_area() code becomes a bit different 
> after this patch - it no longer checks for the inode's 
> permissions change. Nevertheless, this check is useless 
> without my another patch that wakes the waiter up in the
> notify_change(), which is not considered to be useful for
> now.

OK.  Might be better to submit this as a separate patch, though.

--b.
-
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/