linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 block/for-linus] writeback: flush inode cgroup wb switches instead of pinning super

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, 1 Mar 2016 12:50:19 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Nauman Rafique <nauman@...gle.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 block/for-linus] writeback: flush inode cgroup wb
 switches instead of pinning super_block

Hello, Jens.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> I queued this up for 4.5, but I'm feeling a bit uneasy about it. But it's
> either that, or revert 5ff8eaac1636 and fix it for real in 4.6. Jan/Tejun,
> what do you think?

Given that this only matters for cgroup writeback cases, this should
still be fairly low impact, so I don't think it'd matter too much
whether we fix this in this cycle or for 4.6. However, that also means
that we're not risking much by doing it in this cycle, so I'd vote for
doing it now.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun