linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 05/24] erofs: add inode operations

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]

Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 05:53:20 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@....com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/24] erofs: add inode operations

On Sun, Sep 01, 2019 at 05:34:00PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > > +	return iget5_locked(sb, hashval, erofs_ilookup_test_actor,
> > > +		erofs_iget_set_actor, &nid);
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > Just use the slightly more complicated 32-bit version everywhere so that
> > you have a single actually tested code path.  And then remove this
> > helper.
> 
> As I said before, 64-bit platforms is common currently,
> I think iget_locked is enough.
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190830184606.GA175612@architecture4/

The problem with that is that you now have two entirely different
code paths.  And the 32-bit one will probably get very little testing
and eventually bitrot.  We defintively had problems of that sort in
XFS in the past, so my suggestion is to not go down the root of
separate code for 32-bit vs 64-bit unless it makes a real difference
for a real-life workload.