linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] fs: move i_hash out from under inode

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:	Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:24:14 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fs: move i_hash out from under inode_lock

> @@ -925,8 +934,8 @@ static struct inode *get_new_inode(struct super_block *sb,
>  			inode->i_state = I_NEW;
>  			spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>  			hlist_add_head(&inode->i_hash, head);
> +			spin_unlock(&inode_hash_lock);
>  			inode_sb_list_add(inode);
> -			spin_unlock(&inode_lock);

Al said he wanted to have the sb lock nest inside the hash lock for now
I think.  Doubt it matters much, but it keeps the behaviour that we
can't look up an inode which is not added to the per-sb list yet.

After that a better patch description might be:

	"rename inode_lock to inode_hash_lock"

as the inode_lock coverage after the previous patches should be 100%
identical to the new hash lock.
--
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/