linux-kernel - Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1

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: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805060931450.32269@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 6 May 2008 09:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...i.umich.edu>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1



On Tue, 6 May 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> I've wanted to fix file locks for a while.  Here's a first attempt.
> It was done quickly, so I concede that it may well have bugs in it.
> I found (and fixed) one with LTP.

Hmm. Wouldn't it be nicer to make the lock be a per-inode thing? Or is 
there some user that doesn't have the inode info, or does anything that 
might cross inode boundaries?

This does seem to drop all locking around the "setlease()" calls down to 
the filesystem, which worries me. That said, we clearly do need to do 
this. Probably should have done it a long time ago.

Also, why do people do this:

> -find_conflict:
> + find_conflict:

Hmm?

		Linus
--
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/