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]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFz7CrYrwdNScC+5Y8CJ1PaWF7MbrOCRyd_zECt8PXbBqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:17:12 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: dcache shrink list corruption?

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>
> Because we no longer have that.  It now uses the list_lru thing, with
> a "per-node" lock, whatever that one is.

Oh, yes. Right you are. I just started looking at that and went "ugh".

The lru lists are all distributed now with multiple locks (well, one
per list node).

> Another idea, which could have subtler effects, is simply not to kill
> a dentry that is on the shrink list (indicated by
> DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST), since it's bound to get killed anyway.  But
> that's a change in behaviour...

Ooh, I like the way you think. I don't see why this wouldn't be the
right approach.

            Linus
--
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/