| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20160123224435.GI6033@dastard> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:44:35 +1100 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 09:34:56AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 02:58:54PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > ->i_mutex wrappers (with small prereq in lustre), fix for too > > Please explain, Al? > > I haven't heard anything about there being i_mutex changes pending, > and this commit says "over the coming cycle ->i_mutex will become > rwsem". That's a complete surprise to me, and not something that > should be done with no warning. > > What's the locking model? How are filesystems supposed to use it? > Are they even allowed to use read-mode locking, and if so, what > operations is it going to be safe to hold the lock in read mode? > > Why is this change considered valid now, when previously there's > always been significant push-back to any suggestion that we should > make the i_mutex a rwsem so we can do shared read-only access > locking on inode operations? FWIW, I'm not opposed to making such a locking change - I'm more concerned about the fact I'm finding out about plans for such a fundamental locking change from a pull request on the last day of a merge window.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists