linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/3] jbd2 : Make jbd2 transaction handle allocation to return errors and handle them gracefully.

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: <AANLkTi=XeH7a_i4T6jT8LvwZrJfU58Fr8+Oi0d0hbxrd@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:53:40 -0800
From:	Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@...il.com>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] jbd2 : Make jbd2 transaction handle allocation to
 return errors and handle them gracefully.

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 07:32:44PM -0800, Manish Katiyar wrote:
>>  Hi Jan,
>>
>> This is the follow up from https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/17/154
>> Following patches make jbd2 to use GFP_KERNEL for transaction
>> allocation if the caller can handle the errors. Following is the list
>> of functions that I updated to pass the new flag. Also below is the
>> list of functions which still have the old behavior and pass the old
>> flags (either because they can't deal with errors, or I wasn't too
>> sure so I did conservatively). Appreciate your feedback. The other
>> callers of jbd2_journal_start() are from ocfs2, they still pass the
>> old flag.
>
> Hmm, I wonder if it would be better to use
>
> jbd2_journal_start(...)
>
> and
>
> jbd2_journal_start_nofail(...)
>
> The tradeoff is that long-term, the code is more readable (as opposed
> to having people look up what a random "true" or "false" value means).
> But short-term, while it will make the patch smaller, it also makes
> the patch harder audit, since we need to look at all of the places
> where we _haven't_ made a change to make sure those call sites can
> tolerate an error return.

Yes, a new interface is better but wasn't too sure. If the reviewers
feel that is the way to go I can redo. Infact if
this version makes review easier, then once these changes look ok and
agreed, I can submit an updated version with these
changes applied using the new interface. Will that make sense ?

-- 
Thanks -
Manish
--
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