linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] VFS: support parallel updates in the one directory.

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]

Date:   Sat, 27 Aug 2022 01:23:17 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Daire Byrne <daire@...g.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] VFS: support parallel updates in the one directory.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 05:13:38PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> So I feel like if the VFS code cannot rely on locking *anyway* in the
> general case, and should work without it, then we really shouldn't
> have any locking around any of the VFS operations.

That's a really big if.  There's a bunch of places where we rely upon
->i_rwsem on directories and _not_ to provide exclusion for fs methods.
I'm still halfway through the Neil's patchset, but verifying correctness
won't be easy and I'm not optimistic about getting rid of those uses...