linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

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: <20160502012350.GK25498@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 2 May 2016 02:23:51 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 02:08:39AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> Should use lookup_one_len_unlocked(), actually.  lookup_hash() is
> a microoptimization, losing a lot more on excessive i_mutex contention.
> Either variant works, though.

PS: if anybody has a better name for lookup_one_len_unlocked(), I'll gladly
rename it; the thing hadn't been in the kernel for too long and the name is
somewhat confusing.  It's an equivalent of
	inode_lock()
	lookup_one_len()
	inode_unlock()
except that it avoids taking the lock when it's not needed.