linux-ext4 - Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode

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]

Message-Id: <20070715125921.87574a3a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:59:21 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>, cmm@...ibm.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support
 features in larger inode

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:21:03 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> Shows the current stacktrace where we violate the previously established
> locking order.

yup, but the lock_page() which we did inside truncate_mutex was a 
lock_page() against a different address_space: the blockdev mapping.

So this is OK - we'll never take truncate_mutex against the blockdev
mapping (it doesn't have one, for a start ;))

This is similar to the quite common case where we take inode A's
i_mutex inside inode B's i_mutex, which needs special lockdep annotations.

I think.  I haven't looked into this in detail.
-
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