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]

Message-ID: <X9zDu15MvJP3NU8K@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:59:07 -0500
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc:     Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        miklos@...redi.hu, ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        sfr@...b.auug.org.au, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency
 improvement

Hello,

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 03:36:21PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> Sounds like your saying it would be ok to add a lock to the
> attrs structure, am I correct?

Yeah, adding a lock to attrs is a lot less of a problem and it looks like
it's gonna have to be either that or hashed locks, which might actually make
sense if we're worried about the size of attrs (I don't think we need to).

Thanks.

-- 
tejun