linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v1 7/9] ext4: stop using VFS for dirty superblock management

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:	Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:26:51 +0200
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Ext4 Mailing List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS Maling List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Maling List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 7/9] ext4: stop using VFS for dirty superblock
 management

On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 16:41 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> +       INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&sbwork->dwork, write_super);
> +       sbwork->sb = sb;
> +       delay = msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10);
> +       queue_delayed_work(sbi->dio_unwritten_wq, &sbwork->dwork, delay); 

I've just realized that the side-effect of using DIO workqueue is that
'syncfs()' will also synchronize the superblock because it flushes the
workqueue:

static int ext4_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
{
 	...
        flush_workqueue(sbi->dio_unwritten_wq);
	...
}

But before my change, it seems the superblock was not flushed on
'syncfs()', at least I do no see how this would be done. However, I
think it is OK because I think it is correct to write the dirty
superblock out on 'syncfs()', right?

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)