linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] kernfs: Reduce contention around global per-fs kernfs

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: <YeG2bJtkbrue/hwZ@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jan 2022 07:44:12 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] kernfs: Reduce contention around global per-fs
 kernfs_rwsem.

Hello,

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 04:08:10AM +1100, Imran Khan wrote:
> I have made changes inline with your suggestion to synchronize
> addition/removal through hashed locks but so far I am not using tokens.
> I am currently testing these changes (so far no issues seen). Before
> floating next version for review I wanted to understand the reason
> behind need of tokens. Could you please elaborate a bit about what needs
> / may have to be recorded in tokens. Just one example will do. It would
> help me consolidate the next version of this change without overlooking
> something.

Oh, just sth to carry what needs to be done to unlock. If you didn't need
them and returning pointers to the locks was enough, that's fine too but if
double locking was necessary for e.g. removals, encapsulating it in a struct
may be neater.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun