linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] nfs: follow direct I/O write locking convention

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:	Mon, 15 Dec 2014 07:49:20 -0500
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>
To:	Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>
Cc:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] nfs: follow direct I/O write locking convention

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com> wrote:
> The generic callers of direct_IO lock i_mutex before doing a write. NFS
> doesn't use the generic write code, so it doesn't follow this
> convention. This is now a problem because the interface introduced for
> swap-over-NFS calls direct_IO for a write without holding i_mutex, but
> other implementations of direct_IO will expect to have it locked.

I really don't care much about swap-over-NFS performance; that's a
niche usage at best. I _do_ care about O_DIRECT performance, and the
ability to run multiple WRITE calls in parallel.

IOW: Patch NACKed... Please find another solution.

Trond
--
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/