linux-ext4 - Re: [RESEND/PATCH] ext[234]: Return -EIO not -ESTALE on directory traversal missing 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: <20090215053912.GD10706@mini-me.lan>
Date:	Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:39:12 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	sct@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, adilger@....com
Subject: Re: [RESEND/PATCH] ext[234]: Return -EIO not -ESTALE on directory
	traversal missing inode

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 11:53:48PM -0500, Bryan Donlan wrote:
> > I'm dubious about unlikely() here; OTOH, penalizing the error case
> > seems reasonable.
> 
> I can leave it without the unlikely(), as it was before, but as far as
> I can tell, this should never happen under a non-corrupted, non-broken
> hardware filesystem, so it seems like a reasonable annotation to me.

You're right.  I was looking at the wrong place in the source, and
thought this could happen if the lookup failed; but yes, you're right,
this case can only happen if the filesystem is corrupted or there is
an I/O error.

						- Ted
--
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