linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] fs: mnt_want

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: <20090402184844.GA2080@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:48:44 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] fs: mnt_want_write speedup

On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 07:43:05PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> FWIW, I'm not sure that this optimization is valid.  We might eventually
> want to go for "don't allow any new writers, remount r/o when existing
> ones expire" functionality, so nested mnt_want_write() might eventually
> be allowed to fail.

BTW, I think that 1/2 as of Mar 10 is worth merging.  There's an interesting
question, though - do we want mnt_writers int or long?  On 64bit boxen it
can get serious...
--
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/