lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: fs_stack/eCryptfs: remove 3rd arg of copy_attr_all, add locking to copy_inode_size
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Erez Zadok wrote:
> In message <20080403182001.GB30189@josefsipek.net>, "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" writes:
> > I think you need to check CONFIG_PREEMPT as well.
>
> I'm not sure if it's needed in case of CONFIG_PREEMPT. Anyone? The code
> for i_size_write (below), and the comment at the top of the function,
> suggest that the spinlock is needed only to prevent the lots seqcount.

Correct.

> BTW, some time ago I reviewed all callers of i_size_write. I did so again
> just now, and the results were the same:
>
> - a LOT of callers of i_size_write don't take any lock

They mostly know that i_mutex is already held (as i_size_write comment
mentions); but I believe that's up to the individual filesystem.

> - some take another spinlock in a different data structure
> - those that do take the spinlock, do so unconditionally
> - only unionfs and fs/stack.c wrap the spinlock in
>
> #if BITS_PER_LONG == 32 && defined(CONFIG_SMP)

I chose to follow the #ifdeffery of i_size_write(),
but you could do it unconditionally if you prefer:
just a little more overhead when it's not needed.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think the result can be entirely
safe against concurrent changes in the lower filesystem, using
different locking; but I don't know how resilient unionfs is
expected to be against messing directly with lower at the same
time as upper level.
Hugh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-03 21:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans