From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>,
Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] get rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_tree()
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2026 20:28:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260124202840.GO3183987@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whLR=hAPRWsPxV8GQ5VsNb+b+SQ7KpmPCkc9E6SsqnwqQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 11:32:59AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 at 10:41, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > In fact, RANDSTRUCT is so broken in general that we actually taint the
> > > kernel if you enable that crazy option in the first place. So no,
> > > "what if somebody enables it on random things" is not even remotely
> > > worth worrying about.
> >
> > Very much agreed, but we *do* have that on e.g. struct path (two pointers),
> > as well as struct inode, struct file, struct mount, etc. As far as VFS goes,
> > those are core data structures...
>
> I certainly wouldn't mind if we remove the 'struct path' one in
> particular. It's insanely pointless to do randstruct on two fields.
<wry>
Frankly, each time I talk to these folks I keep hearing "Every bit
is wanted/Every bit is good/Every bit is needed/In your neighborhood"
set to the obvious tune...
</wry>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-24 20:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-22 20:20 [PATCH][RFC] get rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_tree() Al Viro
2026-01-23 0:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-01-23 0:36 ` Al Viro
2026-01-24 4:36 ` Al Viro
2026-01-24 4:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-01-24 5:36 ` Al Viro
2026-01-24 17:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-01-24 18:43 ` Al Viro
2026-01-24 19:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-01-24 20:28 ` Al Viro [this message]
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] getting rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_parent() Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] for_each_alias(): helper macro for iterating through dentries of given inode Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] struct dentry: make ->d_u anonymous Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] dcache.c: more idiomatic "positives are not allowed" sanity checks Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] get rid of busy-waiting in shrink_dcache_tree() Al Viro
2026-04-02 19:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-02 22:44 ` Al Viro
2026-04-02 22:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-02 23:16 ` Al Viro
2026-04-03 0:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-03 2:15 ` Al Viro
2026-04-04 0:02 ` Al Viro
2026-04-04 0:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-04 18:54 ` Al Viro
2026-04-04 19:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-05 0:04 ` Al Viro
2026-04-02 20:28 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] getting rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_parent() Paulo Alcantara
2026-04-03 4:46 ` Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 " Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] for_each_alias(): helper macro for iterating through dentries of given inode Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] struct dentry: make ->d_u anonymous Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] dcache.c: more idiomatic "positives are not allowed" sanity checks Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 4/4] get rid of busy-waiting in shrink_dcache_tree() Al Viro
2026-04-09 16:51 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] getting rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_parent() Jeff Layton
2026-04-09 19:02 ` Al Viro
2026-04-09 20:10 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-09 21:57 ` Al Viro
2026-04-09 22:38 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-10 8:48 ` [RFC][PATCH] make sure that lock_for_kill() callers drop the locks in safe order Al Viro
2026-04-10 11:18 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-10 11:56 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-10 15:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-10 15:57 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 16:27 ` Boqun Feng
2026-04-10 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-10 18:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-10 18:21 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-10 19:19 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 19:32 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-10 21:13 ` Calvin Owens
2026-04-10 21:24 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 22:15 ` Calvin Owens
2026-04-10 23:05 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 23:30 ` Calvin Owens
2026-04-11 0:51 ` Al Viro
2026-04-11 12:07 ` Calvin Owens
2026-04-10 17:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-10 18:26 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-10 18:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-10 18:52 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 19:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-10 19:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-10 20:24 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 20:48 ` Al Viro
2026-04-11 21:33 ` Al Viro
2026-04-11 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 01/11] shrink_dentry_list(): start with removing from shrink list Al Viro
2026-04-11 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 02/11] fold lock_for_kill() into shrink_kill() Al Viro
2026-04-11 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 03/11] fold lock_for_kill() and __dentry_kill() into common helper Al Viro
2026-04-11 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 04/11] reducing rcu_read_lock() scopes in dput and friends, step 1 Al Viro
2026-04-11 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 05/11] reducing rcu_read_lock() scopes in dput and friends, step 2 Al Viro
2026-04-11 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 06/11] reducing rcu_read_lock() scopes in dput and friends, step 3 Al Viro
2026-04-11 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 07/11] reducing rcu_read_lock() scopes in dput and friends, step 4 Al Viro
2026-04-11 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 08/11] reducing rcu_read_lock() scopes in dput and friends, step 5 Al Viro
2026-04-11 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 09/11] reducing rcu_read_lock() scopes in dput and friends, step 6 Al Viro
2026-04-11 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 10/11] adjust calling conventions of lock_for_kill(), fold __dentry_kill() into dentry_kill() Al Viro
2026-04-11 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 11/11] document dentry_kill() Al Viro
2026-04-12 19:03 ` [RFC PATCH 01/11] shrink_dentry_list(): start with removing from shrink list Al Viro
2026-04-21 9:28 ` [git pull] dcache busy-wait fixes Al Viro
2026-04-21 16:25 ` pr-tracker-bot
2026-04-12 13:15 ` [RFC][PATCH] make sure that lock_for_kill() callers drop the locks in safe order Jeff Layton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260124202840.GO3183987@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=max.kellermann@ionos.com \
--cc=nik.borisov@suse.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox