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]
Date:	Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:47:45 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>,
	Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/8 v2] ext4: initialize extent status tree

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:09:55AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 04:59:21PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 08:42:52PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > > > If so, we might want to think about adding a sanity check to make sure
> > > > that by the time we are done with the inode in ext4_evict_inode()
> > > > (after we have forced writeback), the ext4_es_tree is empty.  Agreed?
> > > 
> > > Today I revise this patch again, and I find extent_status_tree is freed
> > > in ext4_clear_inode().  So maybe I don't think that we need to check
> > > this tree to be freed in ext4_evict_inode().  This change is in this
> > > patch '[RFC][PATCH 4/8 v2] ext4: let ext4 maintain extent status tree'.
> > > What's your opinion?
> > 
> > When you say "revise this patch again", does that mean that you would
> > like to submit a new set of patch series with changes?  Or just that
> > you are looking at this patch set again?
> 
> Yes, I prepare to submit a new patch set.

Well, note that the merge window is opening *soon*.  I haven't yet
moved the master branch, so I can update the patch set, but I'm going
to need it soon.

Can you let me know what changes you need to make?  If it is to add
new features or new sanity checks, does it make sense to simply make
it as new commits to existing patch set?  Or are there fundamental
problems with the current set, that would be better to fix in the
current set of commits?  (Or is it just minor stylistic/spelling
fixes?)

Thanks!!

					- 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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists