linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: make use of sb_getblk

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: <20150702141754.GA9456@thunk.org>
Date:	Thu, 2 Jul 2015 10:17:54 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com>
Cc:	adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: make use of sb_getblk_gfp

On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 09:16:34AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> Just a question that popped to my mind after discussing with a colleague
> - Is GFP_NOFS enough here or should it be GFP_NOIO? Presumably the
> latter is a stronger guarantee that we are not going to hit any
> fs/writeback related code?

GFP_NOFS is fine here; file system code calls the I/O codepaths, but
device driver code doesn't call fs code.  Put another way, if there
are pages that are backed by a block device, which can be cleaned
without going through the FS code paths, it's fine to let that happen
while we are inside file system code.

						- 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