linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/11] Fix page_mkwrite() for blocksize

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: <20090604171142.GB13639@mit.edu>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:11:42 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, npiggin@...e.de,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] Fix page_mkwrite() for blocksize < pagesize

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 04:59:11PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>   Yes, that would be fine. Thanks. Luckily, the dependence is just one way
> (ext4 change has to go after the VFS patch) so it's just enough to merge
> that ext4 change some time after VFS changes go in.

ext4: Add WARN_ON on unmapped dirty buffer_heads in writepage
fs: Don't clear dirty bits in block_write_full_page()
vfs: Unmap underlying metadata of new data buffers only when buffer is m
ext4: Make sure blocks are properly allocated under mmaped page even whe
vfs: Add better VFS support for page_mkwrite when blocksize < pagesize

FYI, I've added the following to the unstable portion of the patch
queue, and have started running tests (fsx, fsstress, and dbench)
using 1k blocksizes, using a variety of ext4 mount options.  So far,
things look good.

How goes the reviews/comments?  Are we planning on pushing this to
Linus at the beginning of the next merge window?

      	     	       	      	   	 - 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