linux-kernel - Re: dcache shrink list corruption?

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]

Date:	Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:56:54 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: dcache shrink list corruption?

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 06:01:39PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:

> Attached patch is just a starting point (untested).  Not sure how to minimize
> contention without adding too much complexity.

Contention isn't the worst problem here - I'd expect the cacheline ping-pong
to hurt more...  I agree with the analysis, but I'd really like to avoid that
spinlock ;-/

Let me see if we can avoid that...  Oh, well - at least that's a good excuse
to take a break from fucking deadlock analysis around the damn acct(2), most
of VFS and network filesystems ;-/
--
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/