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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	3 Mar 2014 16:03:59 -0500
From:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	linux@...izon.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: Update of file offset on write() etc. is non-atomic with I/O

>  struct fd {
>  	struct file *file;
> -	int need_put;
> +	unsigned need_put:1, need_pos_unlock:1;
>  };

Since we're rounding up to 2*sizeof(struct file *) anyway, is this a case
where wasting space on a couple of char (or bool) flags would generate
better code than a bitfield?

In particular, the code to set need_pos_unlock (which will be executed
each read/write for most files) is messy in the bitfield case.
A byte store is much cleaner.

(If you want to use bits, why not use the two lsbits of the file pointer
for the purpose?  That would save a lot of space.)
--
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