| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20101017004710.GC1614@infradead.org> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:47:10 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, 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 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. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists