linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i

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: <20080825215532.GB28188@lst.de>
Date:	Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:55:32 +0200
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@....com>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	hch@....de
Subject: Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock...

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 08:59:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> How can you take two locks in one go? It seems to me you always need to
> take them one after another, and as soon as you do that, you have
> ordering constraints.

Yes, you would.  Except that in all other places we only have a single
iolock involved, so the ordering of the second iolock and second ilock
don't matter.

Because of that I think declaring that xfs_lock_two_inodes can just
lock on lock type at a time might be the better solution.
--
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/