linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: BUG_ON assertion repeated for inode1, not done for inode2

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150608155937.GH19168@thunk.org>
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