[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120113162236.GK23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:22:36 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix panic in __d_lookup with high dentry hashtable counts
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 09:52:37AM -0600, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> When the number of dentry cache hash table entries gets too high
> (2147483648 entries), use of a signed integer in the initialization
> loop prevents the dentry_hashtable from getting initialized, resulting
> in a panic in __d_lookup. Fixing this in dcache_init and a few other
> spots for consistency.
> static void __init dcache_init(void)
> {
> - int loop;
> + long loop;
You've got to be kidding. Note that D_HASHMASK is at most 32bit. Use
of long here is an overkill and so's 2^31 hash buckets (that's what,
16Gb in hash list heads alone? What kind of average chain length do
you expect, BTW?)
Can alloc_large_system_hash() produce the horrors that large, anyway?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists