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: <49F8743E.7090201@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:37:34 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
CC:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	cmm@...ibm.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

Theodore Tso wrote:
> 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.

I don't think that helps.  The point is to have a block number which is
invalid, therefore won't get unmapped or accidentally written to ...

-Eric

> 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