linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH 4/8] revoke: core code V7

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801161029160.27552@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:35:32 +0200 (EET)
From:	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, alan@...hat.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 4/8] revoke: core code V7

Hi,

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Something like the loop above is not going to go in for sure.  Once we
> get rid of the sb->s_files we can put the list_head in struct file to
> new use eventually if we don't want to get rid of it.  E.g. and
> per-inode list would be much better than the per-superblock one and
> would regularize what the tty driver is doing.

Sure, adding a list of struct files to struct inode obviously works for 
me. But it does increase the size of struct inode which I thought you're 
not allowed to do ;-)

Anyway, there are still some other problems with this patch if we want to 
use it to implement forced unmount (my bad, we can't go changing struct 
inode because it's shared by different mount points).

			Pekka
--
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/