linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ovl: set I_CREATING on inode being created

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFzMv5rkRJs2Xu4L3aAQM6UWSAFhHJhXECyquaW4+BXwBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 13:14:51 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ovl: set I_CREATING on inode being created

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:58 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>
> > So I'd like some clarification on this point before applying it. It's
> > possible that the spinlock is required, I just want to understand why.
>
> I added the spinlock, because it's cheap (new_inode() already pulls it
> into L1 cache) and because it's much harder to prove that lockless one
> is correct than just adding that locking.

Ok, thanks, looks good to me. And looking around, I think it matches
most of the other cases of us setting those I_NEW and I_CREATING
flags, so I guess it's good from a consistency standpoint too.

I just wanted that clarified, but I'll just apply the patch directly.

Thanks,

             Linus