linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/17] locks: move freeing of leases outside of i

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:	Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:03:29 -0400
From:	Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/17] locks: move freeing of leases outside of
 i_lock

On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:50:14 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:38:37AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > There was only one place where we still could free a file_lock while
> > holding the i_lock -- lease_modify. Add a new list_head argument to the
> > lm_change operation, pass in a private list when calling it, and fix
> > those callers to dispose of the list once the lock has been dropped.
> 
> As mentioned I don't see a real need for this, but it does look correct
> to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>

Yeah, it's not strictly necessary, but I think it simplifies the API
for potential users. We already have the infrastructure to handle
deferring file_lock removal so we might as well take advantage of it
here too.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.com>
--
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/