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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <173498616860.11072.11978717859547245956@noble.neil.brown.name>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:36:08 +1100
From: "NeilBrown" <neilb@...e.de>
To: "Hillf Danton" <hdanton@...a.com>
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, Hillf Danton wrote:
> 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.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying.  Could you please
give more details about your concern?
Are you concerned about correctness?  Performance?  Maintainability?
Something else?

Thanks,
NeilBrown