| 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: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:48:57 +0100 From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, dchinner@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/inode: No need to take ->i_lock right after alloc_inode() Am Freitag, 10. Januar 2014, 10:22:29 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:21:13AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > > In all three cases, new_inode_pseudo(), iget_locked() and > > > iget5_locked(), > > > we own the new inode exclusively at this point and therefore taking > > > ->i_lock to protect ->i_state/->i_hash against concurrent access is > > > superfluous. > > We'd still need some sort of barrier to make sure the state is visible > to all CPUs before it becomes visible, usually by another spin_unlock > happing later. If you have a workload where removing these is critical > please document these issues in the code and resubmit it with an explanation > of the workload where it helps. If it's just a cleanup I wouldn't bother > with it. The patch was indented as cleanup patch, but as you pointed out I've failed to think about the barrier. Let's drop the patch. :D Thanks, //richard -- 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