[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:35:24 -0700
From: Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ext4 Secure Delete 7/7v4] ext4/jbd2: Secure Delete: Secure delete
journal blocks
On 10/10/2011 12:47 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> One quick question:
>
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 00:11:05 -0700
> Allison Henderson<achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> + /* Secure delete any blocks still in our range */
>> + if (jbd2_pblk_count> 0)
>> + err = ext4_secure_delete_pblks(journal->j_inode,
>> + jbd2_pblk_start, jbd2_pblk_count);
>> +
>> +out:
>> + spin_unlock(&journal->j_pair_lock);
>
> ext4_secure_delete_pblks() appears to do its job synchronously - it has
> calls to things like sync_dirty_buffer() and such. How can you do that
> while holding ->j_pair_lock?
>
> Thanks,
>
> jon
>
Hi Jon,
Well j_pair_lock is a lock I added to protect the new list of vfs
-> jbd2 block pairs. It is locked by the journal commit thread to
update the list when ever a journal block is modified. The above
code here is called by the same thread that performs a punch hole or
truncate operation, not the journal commit thread. So I'm not
immediately seeing why there would be any lock problems. Is there
another case I'm missing?
Allison
--
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