linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/18] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks

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]

Date:	Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:16:50 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks

Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk> writes:
>
>> Providing
>> locking wrappers that are exactly what users need so they don't have
>> to care about it is, IMO, the right thing to do.
>
> Hiding the type of lock, and hiding the fact that it sets the low bit?
> I don't agree. We don't have synchronization in our data structures,
> where possible, because it is just restrictive or goes wrong when people
> don't think enough about the locking.

I fully agree. The old skb lists in networking made this mistake
long ago and it was a big problem, until people essentially stopped 
using it (always using __ variants) and it was eventually removed.

Magic locking in data structures is usually a bad idea.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/