linux-kernel - Re: Important for fs devs: rcu-walk merged upstream

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:	Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:38:47 +0900
From:	"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Important for fs devs: rcu-walk merged upstream


Nick Piggin:
> This is a big and complex change by any measure, so
> please don't be afraid to ask for help or clarification. I'd
> also really like to be able to update documentation
> based on questions from fs maintainers (in and out of
> tree) who are trying to follow it and bring their code up to
> speed.

Question about what d_lock protects.
Can we skip d_lock when we access d_inode and d_name during its parent
i_mutex is held?
Should these BUG_ON be placed after d_lock?

void dentry_update_name_case(struct dentry *dentry, struct qstr *name)
{
	BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dentry->d_inode->i_mutex));
	BUG_ON(dentry->d_name.len != name->len); /* d_lookup gives this */

	spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
	:::


J. R. Okajima
--
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/