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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4d0d58f6-50e4-45ad-888a-59bd8b34ad15@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 03:28:03 +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 26/4/22 3:21 am, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 06:49:49PM +1000, Imran Khan wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Either way is okay but I like the first one too. Let's break it up to
> smaller pieces so that we can make progress piece by piece.
> 

I have sent first 5 patches after addressing your review comments. This
patch set can be seen at [1].

Could you please have a look and let me know if it looks okay.

Thanks
 -- Imran

[1]:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220428055431.3826852-1-imran.f.khan@oracle.com/