| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:49:04 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ext4: ext4_mark_recovery_complete() doesn't need to use lock_super On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 07:46:08AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > That's true, but the patch also takes out the release/reacquire in in > ext4_remount (which was particularly ugly, belch). Sorry, missed the second hunk of the patch. > So even if > write_super gets called on an r/o filesystem (why?!?), No good reason really. Hopefully we'll sort all that out soon. > we should be > safe because remount will hold lock_super() throughout the entire > remount operation. > > We could delay this cleanup until you clean the mess with write_super, > but I don't think it would be harmful in removing the > lock_super()/unlock_super() pair in ext4_mark_recovery_complete(), and > the unlock_super()/lock_super() pair in ext4_remount before then. Am > I missing something? No, I was just missing the second hunk of the patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists