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:	Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:58:06 +0900
From:	Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
To:	'Theodore Ts'o' <tytso@....edu>
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?
Yes, Right.
> 
> 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?
Yes, It is there but as Lukas said it is not critical than a possible
locking overhead. So, IMHO this is not something which needs urgent
attention and can be tackled properly after checking unclear
performance measurement on high-end server.

Thanks.
> 
> 						- 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