linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/10] freeze feature ver 1.13

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]

Message-Id: <1222464418.27833.7.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:26:58 -0500
From:	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc:	Takashi Sato <t-sato@...jp.nec.com>,
	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>,
	"mtk.manpages@...glemail.com" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] freeze feature ver 1.13

On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 06:48 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:56:52 +0900, Takashi Sato said:

> Would it be a good idea to merge patch 10 into patch 8?   Otherwise, there's
> two issues I can see:
> 
> 1) A mostly theoretical problem if a bisect lands exactly on patch 9 it can
> hit the deadlock.

Really, there's no deadlock until someone uses the new function, so
that's not really an issue, is it?  However, this patchset breaks
bisection anyway.

A bisect anywhere between patch 1 and 7 will cause some number of
filesystems to fail to compile.  Patches 1-7 either need to be combined
into one, or patch 1 needs to add freeze_fs and unfreeze_fs while
leaving write_super_lockfs and unlockfs, then a patch between 7 and 8
could remove write_super_lockfs and unlockfs.

> 2) The API at patch 8 and patch 10 differs, that's going to make testing through
> a bisection of this patch series a pain.

There's no need to test the new interface during a bisection.  Bisection
is important in testing regressions, but not new function.
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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