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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:53:42 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk> Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] seqlock: Remove unused functions On Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:29:50AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So I have to say, I hate this entire series. > > > > Seriously, what the heck is the point of this churn? It's all entirely > > pointless searc-and-replace as far as I can tell, with absolutely zero > > upside. > > > > It makes the low-level filesystems have to be aware of things that > > they don't want to know and *shouldn't* know. Why should a filesystem > > care that d_lock is a seqlock, and have to use a locking function that > > they've never seen before and is very specialized? > > > > The "seq" part of the dentry is something only the lookup code and the > > internal dentry code should care about. NOBODY ELSE should ever care. > > *nod* > > There's another issue I have with that on API level, leaving aside any > questions of that being a good fit for dcache. It's simply a bad interface: > we have variants that lock and play with d_seq, variants that play with > d_seq alone and, most commonly used, variant that locks but does not > touch d_seq at all. IOW, we have traded "writes to d_seq must be under > d_lock" with "update-seq-without-locking primitive must be used after we'd > used lock-without-touching-seq one". Which is not an improvement at all. > Sure, you can make a direct product out of anything; that doesn't make > the result a natural object. > > The _only_ relationship between d_seq and d_lock is that the latter happens > to be serializing updates of the former. For RT there's another one - > ->d_lock taken to protect ->d_seq modifications really should not be > preempted in favour of anything that might do read_seqcount_begin on > ->d_seq. The biggest such section is in __d_move(), AFAICS, and it's not > _that_ big; can't RT simply have them protected by whatever it has that > really prevents preempt? > > IOW, instead of all that stuff, how about > about_to_modify_seq_holding_lock(&dentry->d_seq, &dentry->d_lock); > done_modifying_seq(&dentry->d_seq, &dentry->d_lock); > around those 3 or 4 areas in fs/dcache.c, to give RT the missing information? Fair enough. I thought about that earlier, but I was looking for a solution which does not required to add extra code to every place where the sequence count is updated. I accept, that I went overboard with that approach. Just come up with another idea, which restricts the lock annotation to the init function. struct seqcount { unsigned int seq; #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP spinlock_t *lock; #endif }; seqcount_init(&seq, &protecting_lock); That way we could do the lock held assertions in the write_seqcount functions when LOCKDEP is enabled instead of having them in the code which uses the write_seqcount functions. RT could enable that as well and use it for its own purposes. Would something like that work for you? Thanks, tglx -- 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