linux-kernel - Re: [patch 29/52] fs: icache lock i

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: <20100705224106.GZ24712@dastard>
Date:	Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:41:06 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 29/52] fs: icache lock i_count

On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 03:06:52PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> So it makes a lot of sense to have a lock to rule the inode (as opposed
> to now we have a lock to rule *all* inodes).

I don't disagree with this approach - I object to the fact that you
repurpose an existing lock and change it's locking rules to "rule
the inode". We don't have any one lock that "rules the inode",
anyway, so adding a new "i_list_lock" for the new VFS level locking
strategies makes it a lot more self-contained. Fundamentally I'm
less concerned about the additional memory usage than I am about
having landmines planted around i_lock...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/