linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 6/10] gfs2: Fix error handling in write_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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:23:45 +0100
From:	steve@...gwyn.com
To:	Takashi Sato <t-sato@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	"viro@...IV.linux.org.uk" <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xfs@....sgi.com" <xfs@....sgi.com>,
	"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"mtk.manpages@...glemail.com" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/10] gfs2: Fix error handling in
	write_super_lockfs/unlockfs

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 07:57:18PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
> I've changed write_super_lockfs/unlockfs so that they always return
> 0 (success) to keep a current behavior.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Takashi Sato <t-sato@...jp.nec.com>
> Signed-off-by: Masayuki Hamaguchi <m-hamaguchi@...jp.nec.com>
> ---
>  ops_super.c |    8 +++++---
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-ext4/Documentation/dontdiff linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-ext4/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c linux
> -2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-gfs2/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c
> --- linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-ext4/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c	2008-09-22 07:29:55.000000000 +0900
> +++ linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-gfs2/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c	2008-09-22 10:52:16.000000000 +0900
> @@ -166,13 +166,13 @@ static int gfs2_sync_fs(struct super_blo
>   *
>   */
>  
> -static void gfs2_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb)
> +static int gfs2_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb)
>  {
>  	struct gfs2_sbd *sdp = sb->s_fs_info;
>  	int error;
>  
>  	if (test_bit(SDF_SHUTDOWN, &sdp->sd_flags))
> -		return;
> +		return 0;
>
Since this now returns a status, then this should indicate a failure
I think. Perhaps -EINVAL would be suitable?

Otherwise it looks good from a gfs2 perspective,

Steve.
--
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