linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] locks: have locks_release_file use flock_lock

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: <20150109142723.GA30294@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 9 Jan 2015 06:27:23 -0800
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] locks: have locks_release_file use
 flock_lock_file to release generic flock locks

On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 10:34:17AM -0800, Jeff Layton wrote:
> ...instead of open-coding it and removing flock locks directly. This
> simplifies some coming interim changes in the following patches when
> we have different file_lock types protected by different spinlocks.

It took me quite a while to figure out what's going on here, as this
adds a call to flock_lock_file, but it still keeps the old open coded
loop around, just with a slightly different WARN_ON.

I'd suggest keeping an open coded loop in locks_remove_flock, which
should both be more efficient and easier to review.

--
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/