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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:15:19 +0800
From:   Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     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 Tue, 2020-06-23 at 19:13 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Rick.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 02:22:34PM -0700, Rick Lindsley 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,
> 
> I'm not saying that the hardware should not segment things into
> however many
> pieces that it wants / needs to. That part is fine.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> The problem is fitting that into an interface which wholly doesn't
> fit that
> particular requirement. It's not that difficult to imagine different
> ways to
> represent however many memory slots, right? It'd take work to make
> sure that
> integrates well with whatever tooling or use cases but once done this
> particular problem will be resolved permanently and the whole thing
> will
> look a lot less silly. Wouldn't that be better?

Well, no, I am finding it difficult to imagine different ways to
represent this but perhaps that's because I'm blinker eyed on what
a solution might look like because of my file system focus.

Can "anyone" throw out some ideas with a little more detail than we
have had so far so we can maybe start to formulate an actual plan of
what needs to be done.

Ian