linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/11] VFS: add inode_dir

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: <20241223111225.389-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:12:23 +0800
From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
To: "NeilBrown" <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: "Alexander Viro" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Christian Brauner" <brauner@...nel.org>,
	"Jan Kara" <jack@...e.cz>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] VFS: add inode_dir_lock/unlock

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 14:10:07 +1100 NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > Inventing anything like mutex sounds bad.
> 
> In general I would agree.  But when the cost of adding a mutex exceeds
> the cost of using an alternate solution that only requires 2 bits, I
> think the alternate solution is justified.
> 
Inode deserves more than the 2 bits before such a solution is able to
rework mutex.