linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/18] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks

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]

Date:	Wed, 13 Oct 2010 07:41:26 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/18] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks

>  #include <linux/mount.h>
>  #include <linux/async.h>
>  #include <linux/posix_acl.h>
> +#include <linux/bit_spinlock.h>

list_bl.h already includes bit_spinlock.h, so you shouldn't actually
need it here.

> @@ -2154,7 +2154,7 @@ static int shmem_encode_fh(struct dentry *dentry, __u32 *fh, int *len,
>  		 */
>  		static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock);
>  		spin_lock(&lock);
> -		if (hlist_unhashed(&inode->i_hash))
> +		if (inode_unhashed(inode))
>  			__insert_inode_hash(inode,
>  					    inode->i_ino + inode->i_generation);
>  		spin_unlock(&lock);

That's some amazingly ugly code.  Just keeping the hash bucket lock
over the inode_unhashed check and the insert would remove the need for
the weird local spinlock.  But that's probably best left for a later
patch.

Looks good,


Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>

--
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/