linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/17] fs: icache protect inode state

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: <20101016075434.GC19147@amd>
Date:	Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:54:34 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/17] fs: icache protect inode state

On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 02:02:27AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:18:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
> > 
> > Before removing the inode_lock, we need to protect the inode list
> > operations with the inode->i_lock. This ensures that all inode state
> > changes are serialised regardless of the fact that the lists they
> > are moving around might be protected by different locks. Hence we
> > can safely protect an inode in transit from one list to another
> > without needing to hold all the list locks at the same time.
> 
> The subject does not seem to match the patch description and content.

It is adding i_lock around remaining places where an inode can be moved
on or off icache data structures. As I've described, this is quite
central to my locking design, isn't the changelog understandable?


--
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/