linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH] fs: push rcu_barrier() from deactivate_locked

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: <CA+55aFxbEk0k0jYtkn-H-sT0m4Fy5pH_OQZiPwCtwMvh22-3-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:06:20 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>, Tao Ma <boyu.mt@...bao.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
	v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
	codalist@...a.cs.cmu.edu, ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org,
	osd-dev@...n-osd.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, logfs@...fs.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
	reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] fs: push rcu_barrier() from deactivate_locked_super()
 to filesystems

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> IIUC, moving rcu_barrier() up should help, but I can't say that I fully
> understand SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU semantics.

.. hmm. I think you may be right. Even if we do move it up, we
probably shouldn't use it.

We don't even want SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, since we do the delayed RCU
free for other reasons anyway, so it would duplicate the RCU delaying
and cause problems. I forgot about that little complication.

We could have a separate "RCU_BARRIER_ON_DESTROY" thing, but that's
just silly too.

Maybe your patch is the right thing.

            Linus
--
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/