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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:37:34 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> CC: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, cmm@...ibm.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -V4 2/2] ext4: Use -1 as the fake block number for delayed new buffer_head Theodore Tso wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:17:21AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> Block number '0' should not be used as the fake block number for >> the delayed new buffer. This will result in vfs calling umap_underlying_metadata for >> block number '0'. So use -1 instead. > > sector_t is an unsigned type, so we probably want to use ~0 instead of > -1. I can fix this up before we apply into the patch queue. I don't think that helps. The point is to have a block number which is invalid, therefore won't get unmapped or accidentally written to ... -Eric > Are we agreed both of these should probably be pushed to Linus for > 2.6.30? > > - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists