linux-kernel - Re: [patch 09/14] fs: use RCU / seqlock logic for reverse and multi-step operaitons

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: <874oxbnr2m.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:16:49 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	npiggin@...e.de
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 09/14] fs: use RCU / seqlock logic for reverse and multi-step operaitons

npiggin@...e.de writes:

> The remaining usages for dcache_lock is to allow atomic, multi-step read-side
> operations over the directory tree by excluding modifications to the tree.
> Also, to walk in the leaf->root direction in the tree where we don't have
> a natural d_lock ordering. This is the hardest bit.

General thoughts: is there a way to add a self testing infrastructure
to this. e.g. by having more sequence counts per object (only enabled
in the debug case, so it doesn't matter when cache line bounces) and lots of 
checks? 

I suppose that would lower the work needed of actually fixing this to 
work significantly.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/