linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 06/10] fs: Rework i

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: <20170224204941.GO29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:49:41 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        elena.reshetova@...el.com, ishkamiel@...il.com, dwindsor@...il.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 06/10] fs: Rework i_count

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 04:43:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>  {
> -	return atomic_read(&inode->i_count);
> +	int i_count = atomic_read(&inode->i_count);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * In order to preserve the 'old' usage-count semantics, remove the
> +	 * reference that the hash-table has.

What does it have to do with hashtable, when you are bumping it for _all_
inodes, hashed or not hashed?