linux-kernel - Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: return error number for quota

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 22 Oct 2017 23:01:44 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: return error number for quota_write

On 2017/10/20 3:08, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 10/18, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/10/18 2:17, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 10/17, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2017/10/17 7:04, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2017/10/13 7:15, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> This patch returns an error number to quota_write in order for quota to handle
>>>>>>> it correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should return error number like __generic_file_write_iter, right? it
>>>>>> needs to return written bytes if we have written one page or more, otherwise
>>>>>> return error number feedbacked from write_begin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how about reverting 4f31d26b0c17 ("f2fs: return wrong error number on
>>>>>> f2fs_quota_write")?
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought like that, but realized the code change is somewhat different between
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... main structure of codes here is copied from other file systems, is there
>>>> the same problem in *_quota_write of other file systems?
>>>>
>>>> BTW, it looks making below judgment condition being useless.
>>>>
>>>> 	if (len == towrite)
>>>> 		return 0;
>>>
>>> We need this to avoid needless inode updates. :P
>>
>> For err = 0 and len == towrite case, it more likes a bug of quota that passing
>> 0 in @len.
>>
>> :(, Oh, still didn't get that why there is difference in between reverting and
>> this fixing. Can you please explain more about this?
> 
> Ah, right. Let me just revert the original patch. :)

Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
>