linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] jbd2: Add extra parameter in start_this

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, 31 May 2011 13:22:53 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@...il.com>
Cc:	jack@...e.cz, tytso@....edu, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	mfasheh@...e.com, jlbec@...lplan.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] jbd2: Add extra parameter in
 start_this_handle() to control allocation flags.

On Fri 27-05-11 23:20:57, Manish Katiyar wrote:
> changes from v1 -> v2 :
> *) Update start_this_handle to take extra parameter to specify whether
> to retry the allocation or not.
> *) Added jbd allocation flags for callers to control the transaction allocation
> behavior. Callers can pass JBD2_TOPLEVEL if allocation needs to be done using GFP_KERNEL.
  The above changelog should be below where (*) is.

Also - this is mainly for Ted: I've looked at where we JBD2_TOPLEVEL could
actually be enabled and the results are: Pretty much nowhere.

The problem is that with ext4, we need i_mutex in io completion path to
end page writeback. So we cannot do GFP_KERNEL allocation whenever we hold
i_mutex because mm might wait in direct reclaim for IO to complete and that
cannot happen until we release i_mutex. And pretty much every write path in
ext4 holds i_mutex.

So JBD2_TOPLEVEL looks like a useless excercise to me and I'd just don't do
it.

> Pass extra flags in journal routines to specify if its ok to
> fail in the journal transaction allocation. Passing JBD2_FAIL_OK means caller is
> ok with journal start failures and can handle ENOMEM.
> 
> Update ocfs2 and ext4 routines to pass JBD2_NO_FAIL for the updated journal
> interface by default, to retain the existing behavior.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@...il.com>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.h   |    2 +-
>  fs/ext4/super.c       |    2 +-
>  fs/jbd2/transaction.c |   44 ++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>  fs/ocfs2/journal.c    |    8 ++++----
>  include/linux/jbd2.h  |   13 +++++++++----
>  5 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
  (*) HERE


> +/* JBD2 transaction allocation flags */
> +#define JBD2_NO_FAIL	0x00000001
> +#define JBD2_FAIL_OK	0x00000002
> +#define JBD2_TOPLEVEL	0x00000004
> +
  I guess there's no need for JBD2_FAIL_OK - if NOFAIL is not set, we can
fail. Otherwise the patch looks OK.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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