linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/14] fsnotify: simplify locking

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:12:51 -0500
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/14] fsnotify: simplify locking

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 17:42 +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:

> The main goal of these patches is to change the locking order to 
> 
> group->mark_lock
> inode->i_lock
> mark->lock

There was a LOT of thought that went into the object locking and
lifetime to make sure it was safe, but I agree it is, ummm, complex.
I'll look at these patches but offhand I seem to recall that (by
definition) inode->i_lock was always supposed to be the smallest lock
ever held.  I added Al a VFS guy, who might veto these patches just on
that alone......

-Eric

--
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/