linux-ext4 - Re: Sleeping function called in invalid context

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: <20160805145604.GA9105@thunk.org>
Date:	Fri, 5 Aug 2016 10:56:04 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Sleeping function called in invalid context

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 09:29:59AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > The easist way to fix this is defer the ext4_commit_super() to a
> > workqueue.  We only need this in the errors=continue case, and in that
> > scenario we're not in a hurry when the superblock gets written out.
> 
> Is errors=continue the default option if nothing specifically is
> specified at mount time, since I don't have this set explicitly:
> 
> /dev/vda / ext4 rw,relatime,data=ordered 0 0

Yes, it's the default.  I keep wondering whether we should change the
default to remount-ro or even panic, since people sometimes don't
notice that the "file system has been corrupted" messages, and then
they can end up losing a lot more detail if we forced them to address
the issue right away.

						- 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