linux-kernel - [PATCH] docs: fs: Refactor directory-locking.rst for better reading

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20210816222639.73838-1-kari.argillander@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Aug 2021 01:26:39 +0300
From:   Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@...il.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@...il.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: [PATCH] docs: fs: Refactor directory-locking.rst for better reading

Reorganize classes so that it is easier to read. Before number 4 was
written in one lenghty paragraph. It is as long as number 6 and it is
basically same kind of class (rename()). Also old number 5 was list and
it is as short as 1, 2, 3 so it can be converted non list.

This makes file now much readible.

Signed-off-by: Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@...il.com>
---
 .../filesystems/directory-locking.rst         | 31 +++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/directory-locking.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/directory-locking.rst
index 504ba940c36c..33921dff7af4 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/directory-locking.rst
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/directory-locking.rst
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ When taking the i_rwsem on multiple non-directory objects, we
 always acquire the locks in order by increasing address.  We'll call
 that "inode pointer" order in the following.
 
-For our purposes all operations fall in 5 classes:
+For our purposes all operations fall in 6 classes:
 
 1) read access.  Locking rules: caller locks directory we are accessing.
 The lock is taken shared.
@@ -22,26 +22,25 @@ exclusive.
 3) object removal.  Locking rules: caller locks parent, finds victim,
 locks victim and calls the method.  Locks are exclusive.
 
-4) rename() that is _not_ cross-directory.  Locking rules: caller locks
-the parent and finds source and target.  In case of exchange (with
-RENAME_EXCHANGE in flags argument) lock both.  In any case,
-if the target already exists, lock it.  If the source is a non-directory,
-lock it.  If we need to lock both, lock them in inode pointer order.
-Then call the method.  All locks are exclusive.
-NB: we might get away with locking the source (and target in exchange
-case) shared.
+4) link creation.  Locking rules: lock parent, check that source is not
+a directory, lock source and call the method.  Locks are exclusive.
 
-5) link creation.  Locking rules:
+5) rename() that is _not_ cross-directory.
+Locking rules:
 
-	* lock parent
-	* check that source is not a directory
-	* lock source
-	* call the method.
+	* Caller locks the parent and finds source and target.
+	* In case of exchange (with RENAME_EXCHANGE in flags argument)
+	  lock both the source and the target.
+	* If the target exists, lock it,  If the source is a non-directory,
+	  lock it. If we need to lock both, do so in inode pointer order.
+	* Call the method.
 
 All locks are exclusive.
+NB: we might get away with locking the source (and target in exchange
+case) shared.
 
-6) cross-directory rename.  The trickiest in the whole bunch.  Locking
-rules:
+6) rename() that _is_ cross-directory.  The trickiest in the whole bunch.
+Locking rules:
 
 	* lock the filesystem
 	* lock parents in "ancestors first" order.
-- 
2.30.2