linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <82b2379e-36d0-22c2-41eb-71571e992b37@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:22:34 -0700
From:   Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency
 improvement

On 6/22/20 10:53 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:

> I don't know. The above highlights the absurdity of the approach itself to
> me. You seem to be aware of it too in writing: 250,000 "devices".

Just because it is absurd doesn't mean it wasn't built that way :)

I agree, and I'm trying to influence the next hardware design.  However, what's already out there is memory units that must be accessed in 256MB blocks.  If you want to remove/add a GB, that's really 4 blocks of memory you're manipulating, to the hardware.  Those blocks have to be registered and recognized by the kernel for that to work.

Rick