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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:13:13 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	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 Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 01:49:23PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 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.

I can't find any code outside of ceph where the dcache_lock is used
within 200 lines of code of the inode->i_lock. The ceph code is not
nesting them, though. And AFAICT, the i_lock is not used at all in the
dentry code.

So I must be missing something if this is occurring - can you point
out where this lock ordering is occurring in the mainline code?

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/