linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] xattr: extract simple

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: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1208202122470.1286@eggly.anvils>
Date:	Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Aristeu Rozanski <aris@...hat.com>
cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
	Lennart Poettering <lpoetter@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] xattr: extract simple_xattr code from tmpfs

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Aristeu Rozanski wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:10:09AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Yes, it looks nice to me.  I might have preferred more as inlines in
> > the header file to lower the slight init/evict overhead, and I don't
> > see why __simple_xattr_set() isn't using simple_xattr_alloc() in the
> > same way that shmem_xattr_set() used shmem_xattr_alloc().  But none
> > of that matters:
> > 
> > Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> 
> I can submit additional patches to fix these. What functions you want
> inlined?

Oh, thank you.  I was thinking that it's uncommon for tmpfs files to
have xattrs (and the same probably true of other filesystems), so it's
best to minimize xattrs impact on shared paths.  If simple_xattrs_init()
and simple_xattrs_free() can be static inline functions in linux/xattr.h,
that would be nice.

Probably more important would be to remove spin_lock() and spin_unlock()
(and INIT_LIST_HEAD) from simple_xattrs_free() - those are unnecessary
in shmem_evict_inode(), and wouldn't they be unnecessary whenever
simple_xattrs_free() gets called?

Hugh

> 
> On why __simple_xattr_set() is not using simple_xattr_alloc(), there's
> no reason to be that way, I missed it.
> 
> Thanks for reviewing!
> 
> -- 
> Aristeu
> 
> 
--
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/