linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext2: clear uptodate flag on super block I/O error (v2)

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:	Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:13:17 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext2: clear uptodate flag on super block I/O error
 (v2)

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:19:53 +0100
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:

> > +	if (buffer_write_io_error(sbh)) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * This happens if USB or floppy device is yanked out.
> > +		 * Maybe user put device back in so warn and update again.
> > +		 */
> > +		printk(KERN_ERR
> > +		       "EXT2-fs: previous I/O error to superblock detected\n");
> > +		clear_buffer_write_io_error(sbh);
> > +		set_buffer_uptodate(sbh);  
>   It's not much about puting the device back. It's really just about
> avoiding the warning in mark_buffer_dirty(). So I'd just silently
> set_buffer_uptodate and be done with it. For superblock we are darn sure
> that in memory copy is the one that has the latest data :)

This code mirrors ext4_commit_super, why should ext2 be any different?
--
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