linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH -V4 2/2] ext4: Use -1 as the fake block number for delayed new buffer

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: <20090429153521.GC14264@mit.edu>
Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:35:21 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	cmm@...ibm.com, sandeen@...hat.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V4 2/2] ext4: Use -1 as the fake block number for
	delayed new buffer_head

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:17:21AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Block number '0' should not be used as the fake block number for
> the delayed new buffer. This will result in vfs calling umap_underlying_metadata for
> block number '0'. So  use -1 instead.

sector_t is an unsigned type, so we probably want to use ~0 instead of
-1.  I can fix this up before we apply into the patch queue.

Are we agreed both of these should probably be pushed to Linus for
2.6.30?

					- 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