linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] Remove the XFS mrlock

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: <87wmr5n6p7.fsf@debian-BULLSEYE-live-builder-AMD64>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 19:53:21 +0530
From: Chandan Babu R <chandanbabu@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, "Darrick J .
 Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, Peter
 Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will
 Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] Remove the XFS mrlock

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:05:10 PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:24:21PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
>> XFS has an mrlock wrapper around the rwsem which adds only the
>> functionality of knowing whether the rwsem is currently held in read
>> or write mode.  Both regular rwsems and rt-rwsems know this, they just
>> don't expose it as an API.  By adding that, we can remove the XFS mrlock
>> as well as improving the debug assertions for the mmap_lock when lockdep
>> is disabled.
>> 
>> I have an ack on the first patch from Peter, so I would like to see this
>> merged through the XFS tree since most of what it touches is XFS.
>
> What needs to happen to get these picked up to not miss the next merge
> window?

Sorry, I missed this patchset. I tried applying this patchset on top of XFS'
current for-next branch. But it failed due to merge conflicts. I would suggest
that you should wait until the "shmem patches" impasse gets resolved and
for-next branch becomes stable.

I will respond to this mail as to when you can rebase your patchset on
for-next and either send a pull request or post the rebased version of the
patchset to the mailing list.

-- 
Chandan