linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 00/10] kernfs: Remove reference counting for kernfs_open

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: <f2ca9d19-023f-76d9-5c76-6f08ccfbe348@oracle.com>
Date:   Sat, 23 Apr 2022 18:49:49 +1000
From:   Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/10] kernfs: Remove reference counting for
 kernfs_open_node.

Hello Tejun,

On 23/4/22 3:03 am, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Imran.
> 
> I took a look to patch 5 and it looks like there's still some work left to
> do. Maybe it'd be easier to concentrate on the first two parts - the notify
> list conversion and open_file_mutex conversion first and then get to the
> rest later?
> 

Thanks again for reviewing this and I agree with your suggestion. So far
most of the concerns have been around usage of kernfs_rwsem and those
can be addressed independent of first 5 (even first 7 )changes here.
Just one question in this regard, should I send the new patch set
(addressing open_file_mutex and list conversion) as a separate patch set
or should I sent it as v9 of ongoing change set. I guess first option is
better but thought of confirming once before proceeding.

Thanks
-- Imran
> Thanks.
>