linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: Fix assertion in ext4_add_complete

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: <20131016120139.GA14278@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:01:39 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	jon ernst <jonernst07@...il.com>
Cc:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: Fix assertion in ext4_add_complete_io()

On Tue 15-10-13 15:54:18, jon ernst wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> >> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:32:28 +0200
> >> From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> >> To: Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>
> >> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: Fix assertion in ext4_add_complete_io()
> >>
> >> It doesn't make sense to require io_end->handle when we are in nojournal
> >> mode. So update the assertion accordingly to avoid false warnings from
> >> ext4_add_complete_io().
> >
> > Looks good.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> >
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> >> ---
> >>  fs/ext4/page-io.c | 5 +++--
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/page-io.c b/fs/ext4/page-io.c
> >> index d7d0c7b46ed4..d488f80ee32d 100644
> >> --- a/fs/ext4/page-io.c
> >> +++ b/fs/ext4/page-io.c
> >> @@ -197,14 +197,15 @@ static void dump_completed_IO(struct inode *inode, struct list_head *head)
> >>  static void ext4_add_complete_io(ext4_io_end_t *io_end)
> >>  {
> >>       struct ext4_inode_info *ei = EXT4_I(io_end->inode);
> >> +     struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(io_end->inode->i_sb);
> >>       struct workqueue_struct *wq;
> >>       unsigned long flags;
> >>
> >>       /* Only reserved conversions from writeback should enter here */
> >>       WARN_ON(!(io_end->flag & EXT4_IO_END_UNWRITTEN));
> >> -     WARN_ON(!io_end->handle);
> >> +     WARN_ON(!io_end->handle && sbi->s_journal);
> 
> swap 2 conditions would be better in my opinion.   (for no-journal
> case, it will be short-circuited. For journal case, no harm, no
> difference.)
> i know this is too picky. :)
  OTOH you will check sbi->s_journal unnecessarily for the more common
case when the journal is enabled. But I don't care tham much really.

								Honza

-- 
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