linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/27] xfs: Convert to new freezing code

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: <20120612143220.GG6021@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:32:20 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...e.cz,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	Ben Myers <bpm@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/27] xfs: Convert to new freezing code

On Tue 12-06-12 10:23:47, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +	 * We will pass freeze protection with a transaction.  So tell lockdep
> > +	 * we released it.
> > +	 */
> > +	rwsem_release(&ioend->io_inode->i_sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1],
> > +		      1, _THIS_IP_);
> 
> I'll need some time to get through the whole series, but repeated use
> of constructs like this really screams for a helper abstracting it out
> and documenting it.
  It's there twice and only in XFS because XFS needs to pass the freeze
protection (along with a transaction) to a worker thread. I'm not against a
helper but then it should probably be in a form to allow easy
instrumentation of lockdep that we are passing a state of lock together
with a work struct?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/