linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the 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]

Message-ID: <20101023214046.GS19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:40:46 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
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 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 07:40:33AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:37:05AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > One more note: IMO sb list lock is better off inside the hash one; when we
> > do per-chain hash locks, we'll be better off if we don't have to hold sb
> > one over the entire chain search.
> 
> Why would you nest these two at all?

[already said off-list, but since the question had been here...]

Insertion in hash and into sb list.  We *probably* don't care about
atomicity of that pair, but in this case we are dealing with two
topmost locks of hierarchy that might become independent.  That really
can be done as a followup.
--
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/