linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: introduce is_dot

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 Dec 2019 18:46:49 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: introduce is_dot_dotdot helper for cleanup

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 10:07:41AM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> On 12/03/2019 04:03 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 06:10:13PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > > There exists many similar and duplicate codes to check "." and "..",
> > > so introduce is_dot_dotdot helper to make the code more clean.
> > The idea is good.  The implementation is, I'm afraid, badly chosen.
> > Did you benchmark this change at all?  In general, you should prefer the
> 
> Thanks for your reply and suggestion. I measured the
> performance with the test program, the following
> implementation is better for various of test cases:
> 
> bool is_dot_dotdot(const struct qstr *str)
> {
>         if (unlikely(str->name[0] == '.')) {
>                 if (str->len < 2 || (str->len == 2 && str->name[1] == '.'))
>                         return true;
>         }
> 
>         return false;
> }
> 
> I will send a v2 patch used with this implementation.

Well, hang on.  If you haven't done any benchmarking, please do so
before sending a v2.  In particular, you've now moved this to being a
function call.  That might slow things down, or it might speed things up.
I also don't know if passing a qstr is going to be the right API --
let's hear from the filesystems affected by the API change that they're
OK with this change.