linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext3: call ext3_mark_recovery_complete() when recovery is really needed

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: <CA+dCu88f-5FVBHk6-jv0X_PSJ=aS=+uRVJemS3-=p_+5FiCfmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Nov 2011 22:04:54 +0800
From:	Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext3: call ext3_mark_recovery_complete() when recovery is
 really needed

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> On Tue 01-11-11 10:06:19, Eryu Guan wrote:
>> Call ext3_mark_recovery_complete() in ext3_fill_super() only if
>> needs_recovery is non-zero.
>>
>> Besides that, print out "recovery complete" message after calling
>> ext3_mark_recovery_complete().
>  OK, I don't see a problem in this patch. But is there some benefit in it?
> I'm slightly nervous it could change something subtle...

I think current code may confuse people. The variable 'needs_recovery' in
ext3_fill_super() only be used in this 'if' switch, but all the 'if'
does is printing
out a log message and no matter what value 'needs_recovery' is,
ext3_mark_recovery_complete() is always being called.

This change makes the logic more clear and of course reduce a little overhead
when mounting clean fs.

This change also consists with ext4 counter part
3733         if (needs_recovery) {
3734                 ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "recovery complete");
3735                 ext4_mark_recovery_complete(sb, es);
3736         }

But, yes, current code exists for a long time and no one complains about it, the
change is trivial. If people worry more, I'm fine with skipping this patch.

Thanks.
Eryu Guan
>
>                                                                Honza
>>
>> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
>> Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/ext3/super.c |    5 +++--
>>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ext3/super.c b/fs/ext3/super.c
>> index 7beb69a..2681e0d 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext3/super.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext3/super.c
>> @@ -2060,9 +2060,10 @@ static int ext3_fill_super (struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
>>       EXT3_SB(sb)->s_mount_state |= EXT3_ORPHAN_FS;
>>       ext3_orphan_cleanup(sb, es);
>>       EXT3_SB(sb)->s_mount_state &= ~EXT3_ORPHAN_FS;
>> -     if (needs_recovery)
>> +     if (needs_recovery) {
>> +             ext3_mark_recovery_complete(sb, es);
>>               ext3_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "recovery complete");
>> -     ext3_mark_recovery_complete(sb, es);
>> +     }
>>       ext3_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "mounted filesystem with %s data mode",
>>               test_opt(sb,DATA_FLAGS) == EXT3_MOUNT_JOURNAL_DATA ? "journal":
>>               test_opt(sb,DATA_FLAGS) == EXT3_MOUNT_ORDERED_DATA ? "ordered":
>> --
>> 1.7.7.1
>>
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> SUSE Labs, CR
>
--
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