linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] fuse: handle release synchronously (v4)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:54:42 +0200
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com>,
	Anand Avati <avati@...ster.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael j Theall <mtheall@...ibm.com>,
	fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fuse: handle release synchronously (v4)

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>
> One idea is to change ->flush() so it's responsible for fput()-ing the
> file.  That way we could take control of the actual refcount
> decrement.  There are only 20 flush instances in the tree, so it
> wouldn't be a huge change.

Since that *still* wouldn't fix the problem with the whole "count
elevated by other things" issue, I really don't want to hear about
these random broken hacks that are fundamentally broken crap.

Really. Stop cc'ing me with "let's implement this hack that cannot
work in general". I'm not interested. There's a reason we don't do
this. We don't make up random hacks that we know cannot work in the
general case.

            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/