linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: inode: Recycle inodenum from volatile inode slabs

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: <20191227113656.GA442424@chrisdown.name>
Date:   Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:36:56 +0000
From:   Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@...com,
        "zhengbin (A)" <zhengbin13@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: inode: Recycle inodenum from volatile inode slabs

Amir Goldstein writes:
>> - bpffs
>> - configfs
>> - debugfs
>> - efivarfs
>> - hugetlbfs
>> - ramfs
>> - tmpfs
>>
>
>I'm confused about this list.
>I suggested to convert tmpfs and hugetlbfs because they use a private
>inode cache pool, therefore, you can know for sure that a recycled i_ino
>was allocated by get_next_ino().

Oh, right. I mistakenly thought alloc_inode was somehow sb-specific and missed 
that these don't have any super_operations->alloc_inode :-)

I'll reduce it just to those with this explicitly set.

>I'd go even further to say that introducing a generic helper for this sort
>of thing is asking for trouble. It is best to keep the recycle logic well within
>the bounds of the specific filesystem driver, which is the owner of the
>private inode cache and the responsible for allocating ino numbers in
>this pool.

Thanks, considering that alloc_inode isn't sb-dependent like I thought, that 
definitely sounds reasonable. I'll do that and send v3 then.

Thanks,

Chris