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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:05:24 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V2 5/5] ext4: Fix the race between read_inode_bitmap
	and ext4_new_inode

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:14:35PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> We need to make sure we update the inode bitmap and clear
> EXT4_BG_INODE_UNINIT flag with sb_bgl_lock held. We look
> at EXT4_BG_INODE_UNINIT and reinit the inode bitmap each
> time in ext4_read_inode_bitmap (introduced by
> c806e68f5647109350ec546fee5b526962970fd2 )

OK, I believe I've checked in all of your patches in this series into
the ext4 patch queue

Some of them have comments that still need to be cleared; this one in
particular needs a better commit comment, and ideally a comment for
the new function ext4_claim_inode().

Also, please don't rename variables unnecessarily; if you really think
it's needed, please do so in a separate patch.  The renaming of
variables makes it much harder to review the patch, since it bloats
the patch, and obscures the true changes happening in the patch.
Please explain why you are making some of the changes you made in the
patch.  In particular, why does it matter the order in which you
unlock the bh and sb_bgl_lock in balloc.c, mballoc.c and inode.c?


					- Ted
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