| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:05:27 +0200 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: vaurora@...hat.com CC: miklos@...redi.hu, jblunck@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, bharata@...ibm.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, mszeredi@...e.cz Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/32] VFS based Union Mount (V3) On Tue, 19 May 2009, Valerie Aurora wrote: > As Jan said, readdir() of read-only unioned file systems works with a > tmpfs top layer. If you think about it, this is the exact equivalent > of the version of union mounts which used the in-kernel caching > approach - except that it's better, because it reuses existing code > and caches between readdir() calls. Cool, huh? Yeah... OTOH tmpfs is probably a way too heavyweight solution for cases where memory is short, and union mounts would typically be used on such systems. The big reason why kernel impementation of readdir is hard is that unswappable kernel memory needs to be used for caching directory contents while the directory is open. Well, tmpfs does the same, dentries and inodes are _not_ swappable, and they gobble up memory. So where's the advantage over implementing a thin deduplicating and caching layer for union mounts? Thanks, Miklos -- 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