linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/11] vfs: factor out inode

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: <20180610060159.GS30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Sun, 10 Jun 2018 07:02:15 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] vfs: factor out inode_insert5()

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 06:49:10AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
> > 
> > Split out common helper for race free insertion of an already allocated
> > inode into the cache.  Use this from iget5_locked() and
> > insert_inode_locked4().  Make iget5_locked() use new_inode()/iput() instead
> > of alloc_inode()/destroy_inode() directly.
> 
> ... thus hitting the sucker with ->evict_inode(), in condition that is quite
> likely to be unfit to be seen by that.
> 
> NAK.

To clarify: objection here is against the switch to new_inode/iput.  The rest is
sane.  What makes new_inode() better here, anyway?