linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/19] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes.

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: <20101017020951.GC3162@amd>
Date:	Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:09:51 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/19] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes.

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 08:47:10PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 04:29:24AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > I don't think the pointer check will work either.  By the time we retake
> > > the lru lock the inode might already have been reaped through a call
> > > to invalidate_inodes.  There's no way we can do anything with it after
> > 
> > I don't think you're right. If we re take inode_lock, ensure it is on
> > the LRU, and call the can_unuse checks, there is no more problem than
> > the regular loop taking items from the LRU, AFAIKS.
> 
> As long as we have the global inode lock it should indeed be safe.
> But once we have a separate lru lock (global or per-zone, with or
> without i_lock during the addition) there is nothing preventing the
> inode from getting reused and re-added to the lru in the meantime.
> Sure this is an extremly unlikely case, but there is no locking to
> prevent it once inode_lock is gone.

No. There is nothing preventing that exact reuse from happening in
mainline _today_ either, because the inode_lock is dropped there too.

The point is that it is a heuristic that works (apparently) most of the
time but if it gets it wrong then it's not a big deal, it's only the LRU
position anyway. It would work exactly the same with separate global or
per-zone lru locks.

--
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/