linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: introduce new i_write

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, 3 Jun 2014 11:19:58 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
Cc:	'Lukáš Czerner' <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	'linux-ext4' <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	'Ashish Sangwan' <a.sangwan@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: introduce new i_write_mutex to protect
 fallocate

On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:04:32PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> IMHO, If our goal is to solve the problem of xfstests, we can use only
> "ext4: fix ZERO_RANGE test failure in data journalling" patch without
> i_write_mutex patch. And we can add lock for fallocate on next kernel
> after checking with sufficient time.

I thought this patch required i_write_mutex to avoid a race where
another thread modifies an inode while filemap_write_and_wait_range()
is running?

I agree that we could drop the i_write_mutex and add a call to
ext4_force_commit() which should make the xfstest failure rarer, but
the race would still be there, yes?

						- 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