linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/19] fs: Reduce inode 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101017024923.GA6453@amd>
Date:	Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:49:23 +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 17/19] fs: Reduce inode I_FREEING and factor inode
 disposal

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 09:30:47PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >   * inode->i_lock is *always* the innermost lock.
> >   *
> > + * inode->i_lock is *always* the innermost lock.
> > + *
> 
> No need to repeat, we got it..

Except that I didn't see where you fixed all the places where it is
*not* the innermost lock. Like for example places that take dcache_lock
inside i_lock.

Really, the assertions that my series is causing the world to end
because it makes i_lock no longer the innermost lock (not that it is
anyway) etc. is just not constructive in the slightest.

A lock is a lock. If we take another lock inside it, it is not an
innermost lock. If we do it properly and don't introduce deadlocks, it
is not a bug.

--
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/