| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <524f69650810301051j7400a3f6m1840d06924ab8e89@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:51:03 -0500 From: "Steve French" <smfrench@...il.com> To: "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...hat.com> Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] cifs: fix oopses and mem corruption with concurrent mount/umount (try #4) On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote: > I think we want to resist having locks that protect too many things. > With that, we end up with the locks held over too much code. Not only is > that generally worse for performance, but it can paper over race > conditions. I agree that it is trivially worse for performance to have a single spinlock protecting the three interrelated structures (cifs tcp, smb and tree connection structs), but since they point to one another and frequently have operations that require us to use all three lists - to do things like iterate through all tree connections within a particular smb session, or iterate across all cifs smb sessions within each cifs tcp session - it makes code more complicated to have to grab and unlock multiple spinlocks in the correct order every time across all exit paths etc. -- Thanks, Steve -- 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