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:	Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:36:30 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <>
To:	Jan Kara <>
Cc:	Hidehiro Kawai <>,,,,,,
	sugita <>,
	Satoshi OSHIMA <>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ext3: don't read inode block if the buffer has a write error

On Monday 23 June 2008 22:31, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 23-06-08 21:46:27, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > I don't know why it was done like this, or if anybody actually tested
> > any of it, but AFAIKS the best way to fix this is to simply not
> > clear any uptodate bits upon write errors.
>   That would be non-trivial effort because there are lots of places which
> do things like:
>   wait_on_buffer(bh);
>   if (!buffer_uptodate)
>     /* IO error handling */
>   But what you say sounds like a reasonable thing from a logical
> perspective.

For reads, that's obviously a common pattern, although even that's
broken in some cases where it is used. But definitely uptodate should
not be set on a read error (although does it need to be explicitly
cleared? I would hope we don't submit a read anyway if the page/buffer
is already uptodate).

But you're right, even changing this for writes would not be a trivial
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