linux-kernel - Re: hugetlb locking bug.

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: <1302902583.2035.40.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:23:03 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	William Irwin <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: hugetlb locking bug.

On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 17:13 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:09:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Is there a sane reason they do their own magic, and thus need a copy of
> > the logic, instead of using the generic code that already has it?
> 
> There is not need to use the inode hash for purely in-memory
> filesystem.  The dcache tells us if an entry already exists,
> so there is no need to a lru list, hash or other overhead.

OK makes sense, should we then make some common code to share between
these in-memory filesystems so as to limit the number of copies of this
logic?

--
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/