linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] block: inline BDEV

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: <YWPz1io+ePaNSYt5@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:20:38 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] block: inline BDEV_I and friends

On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 01:25:39PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> I_BDEV and BDEV_I are very simple, they worth a single arith instruction
> or can even be almost completely compiled out. Inline them.

I see the benefit, but this is moving in the wrong direction.

struct bdev_inode is private to hide the struct inode.  Which at
the momen is a bit pointless given the bd_inode pointer in struct
block_device.

So we have two choices here that make sense:

 1) remove struct bdev_inode and kill the illusion that the inode
    is a private implementation detail
 2) remove direct references to bd_inode entirely.  Most of them are
    to i_size which already has proper helpers that should be used,
    and the rest can probably be covered with a handful wrappes or
    is bogus anyway