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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 11:59:37 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> Cc: David Moore <dmoorefo@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: BUG_ON assertion repeated for inode1, not done for inode2 On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:44:24PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/26/15 12:42 PM, David Moore wrote: > > During a source code review of fs/ext4/extents.c I noted identical > > consecutive lines. An assertion is repeated for inode1 and never done > > for inode2. This is not in keeping with the rest of the code in the > > ext4_swap_extents function and appears to be a bug. > > > > Assert that the inode2 mutex is not locked. > > Yep, it's been that way since > > fcf6b1b ext4: refactor ext4_move_extents code base > > and it's pretty obviously not right as it is, and > if there's any doubt the comments make it clear: > > + * Locking: > + * i_mutex is held for both inodes > + * i_data_sem is locked for write for both inodes > > Thanks, > > Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> Thanks, applied. - 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