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  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, 13 Jun 2007 16:07:01 -0700
From:	Badari Pulavarty <>
To:	Nick Piggin <>
Cc:	lkml <>,,
	ext4 <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
Subject: Re: +
	fs-introduce-write_begin-write_end-and-perform_write-aops.patch added to
	-mm tree

On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 13:43 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > 5) ext3_write_end:
> > 	Before  write_begin/write_end patch set we have folowing locking
> > 	order:
> > 		stop_journal(handle);
> > 		unlock_page(page);
> > 	But now order is oposite:
> > 		unlock_page(page);
> > 		stop_journal(handle);
> > 	Can we got any race condition now? I'm not sure is it actual problem,
> > 	may be somebody cant describe this.
> Can we just change it to the original order? That would seem to be
> safest unless one of the ext3 devs explicitly acks it.

It would be nice to go back to original order, but its not that
simple with current structure of the code. With Nick's patches
unlock_page() happens in generic_write_end(). journal_stop() 
needs to happen after generic_write_end(). :(

Mingming, can you take a look at the current & proposed order ?
I ran into bunch of races when I tried to change the order for
->writepages() support earlier :(


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists