linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new

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: <20101018144817.GA14369@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:48:17 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:11:39AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> This is what we call code factorization. I wont call it evil.
> 
> If we want to change get_next_ino(void) implementation to 
> get_next_ino(struct inode *), or even get_next_inode(struct inode
> *inode, struct super_block *sb)
>  then we must go through all fs after your patch to add the new
> parameter.
> 
> I proposed an implementation on get_next_ino() on 32bit arches, with no
> per_cpu and shared counter, assuming we know the inode pointer. With
> your patch, it become very difficult to implement such an idea.

Why?  You now have all call sites that care and can trivially change
them to whatever argument they need.
--
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/