linux-kernel - Re: [patch 14/52] fs: dcache scale subdirs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1277366161.1875.888.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:56:01 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	npiggin@...e.de
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 14/52] fs: dcache scale subdirs

On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 13:02 +1000, npiggin@...e.de wrote:
> plain text document attachment (fs-dcache-scale-d_subdirs.patch)
> Protect d_subdirs and d_child with d_lock, except in filesystems that aren't
> using dcache_lock for these anyway (eg. using i_mutex).
> 
> XXX: probably don't need parent lock in inotify (because child lock
> should stabilize parent). Also, possibly some filesystems don't need so
> much locking (eg. of child dentry when modifying d_child, so long as
> parent is locked)... but be on the safe side. Hmm, maybe we should just
> say d_child list is protected by d_parent->d_lock. d_parent could remain
> protected with d_lock.
> 
> XXX: leave dcache_lock in there until remove dcache_lock patch

This still suffers the problem John found, right?
--
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/