| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20101012120537.GD32255@dastard> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:05:37 +1100 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/18] fs: split __inode_add_to_list On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 07:31:30AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:47:27PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > The only reason XFS hashed the inodes was to avoid problems in the > > generic code that checked for unhashed inodes during clear_inode(). The > > evict() changeover moved that unhashed check into > > generic_drop_inode(), which the filesystem can override. Hence if > > you add a ->drop_inode() method for XFS that just checks the link > > count, we can avoid ha??hing the inodes altogether for XFS. > > > > I can add another patch on top of this one to do that if you want... > > It's unfortunately not that simple. Take a look at the unhashed check > in __mark_inode_dirty. Damn - I forgot about that one. Does anyone know why that check is there? > The drop_inode check could be avoided for > quite a long time now. What we could do however is the same hack as > JFS does in diReadSpecial(). Nasty, but effective. Worth considering, I think. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists