linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL v2] dlm fixes for 6.9

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: <CAHk-=wjnxmpk1L9+ibbZmia0qNNwa8Qnk31_57O-DZqQfL08OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:44:15 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gfs2@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] dlm fixes for 6.9

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 14:25, David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> I dropped the commit with the bad atomic usage, and replaced it with two
> other commits: the first reverts the unnecessary change that began using
> atomic_t for lkb_wait_count, and the second adds comments to the recovery
> code that forcibly resets the wait_count state.

Ok, the diff certainly looks saner. I didn't look at the code outside
the context of the diff, so that's literally just going by the patches
themselves, but I appreciate the comment ("The wait_count will almost
always be 1, but in case of an overlapping unlock/cancel it could be
2: see ..") and yes, it just makes the old atomic thing sound even
odder.

Thanks,

            Linus