netdev - Re: [PATCH] vfs: dont chain pipe/anon/socket on superblock s

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:	Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:03:57 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, npiggin@...nel.dk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: dont chain pipe/anon/socket on superblock s_inodes
 list

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:21:06AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Well, not 'last' contention point, as we still hit remove_inode_hash(),

There should be no ned to put pipe or anon inodes on the inode hash.
Probably sockets don't need it either, but I'd need to look at it in
detail.

> inode_wb_list_del()

The should never be on the wb list either, doing an unlocked check for
actually beeing on the list before taking the lock should help you.

> inode_lru_list_del(),

No real need to keep inodes in the LRU if we only allocate them using
new_inode but never look them up either.  You might want to try setting
.drop_inode to generic_delete_inode for these.

> +struct inode *__new_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> +{
> +	struct inode *inode = alloc_inode(sb);
> +
> +	if (inode) {
> +		spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> +		inode->i_state = 0;
> +		spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_sb_list);
> +	}
> +	return inode;
> +}

This needs a much better name like new_inode_pseudo, and a kerneldoc 
comment explaining when it is safe to use, and the consequences, which
appear to me:

 - fs may never be unmount
 - quotas can't work on the filesystem
 - writeback can't work on the filesystem

> @@ -814,13 +829,9 @@ struct inode *new_inode(struct super_block *sb)
>  
>  	spin_lock_prefetch(&inode_sb_list_lock);
>  
> -	inode = alloc_inode(sb);
> -	if (inode) {
> -		spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> -		inode->i_state = 0;
> -		spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> -		inode_sb_list_add(inode);
> -	}
> +	inode = __new_inode(sb);
> +	if (inode)
> +			inode_sb_list_add(inode);

bad indentation.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html