linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] sysfs: Keep an nlink count on sysfs directories.

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: <m1k4vn72w8.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:34:47 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...et.ca>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] sysfs: Keep an nlink count on sysfs directories.

Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> writes:

> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:21:51 -0800,
> "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
>> 
>> On large directories sysfs_count_nlinks can be a significant
>> bottleneck, so keep a count in sysfs_dirent.  If we exceed
>> the maximum number of directory entries we can store return
>> nlink of 1.  An nlink of 1 matches what reiserfs does in
>> this case, and it let's find and similar utlities know that
>> we have a the directory nlink can not be used for optimization
>> purposes.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/sysfs/dir.c   |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>  fs/sysfs/inode.c |   15 +--------------
>>  fs/sysfs/mount.c |    1 +
>>  fs/sysfs/sysfs.h |    1 +
>>  4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>> 
>
>> @@ -420,6 +438,7 @@ int __sysfs_add_one(struct sysfs_addrm_cxt *acxt, struct sysfs_dirent *sd)
>>  		return -EEXIST;
>> 
>>  	sd->s_parent = sysfs_get(acxt->parent_sd);
>> +	sysfs_dir_inc_nlink(sd->s_parent);
>> 
>>  	sysfs_link_sibling(sd);
>> 
>> @@ -512,6 +531,7 @@ void sysfs_remove_one(struct sysfs_addrm_cxt *acxt, struct sysfs_dirent *sd)
>> 
>>  	BUG_ON(sd->s_flags & SYSFS_FLAG_REMOVED);
>> 
>> +	sysfs_dir_dec_nlink(sd->s_parent);
>>  	sysfs_unlink_sibling(sd);
>> 
>>  	/* Update timestamps on the parent */
>
> Shouldn't s_nlink be adjusted in sysfs_rename for the move case as well?

Yes.  I hereby nominate this as my most buggy patch ever.
Ugh.

I thought I actually cared about nlinks when I bothered to keep a
nlink count, but I am starting to think I really don't.

Eric

--
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/