linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] vfs: umount

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]

Date:	Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:50:17 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LFSDEV <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] vfs: umount_begin BKL pushdown v2

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:06:34AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> You've not replied to my request (attached below) to put these 
> trivial BKL-pushdown bits into a separate branch/tree and not into 
> the VFS tree. You've now mixed that commit with other VFS changes.
> 
> Had it been in a separate branch, and had we tested it, Linus could 
> have pulled the trivial BKL pushdown bits out of normal merge order 
> as well. That is not possible now.

It shouldn't be pushed out of order.  It's a normal VFS locking change
and should be pushed with the next VFS push for 2.6.31.

> Furthermore, by doing this you are also hindering the 
> tip:kill-the-BKL effort (which has been ongoing for a year chipping 
> away at various BKL details) which facilitated these changes. 
> Alessio did these fixes to fix bugs he can trigger in that tree.
> 
> You've also not explained why you have done it this way. It would 
> cost you almost nothing to apply these bits into a separate branch 
> and merge that branch into your main tree. Lots of other maintainer 
> are doing that.

Having a separate kill the BKL tree is a stupid idea.  Locking changes
need deep subsystem knowledge and should always go through the subsystem
trees.

--
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/