linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/6 linux-next] ext4: avoid EXT4_INODE

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: <20160915154316.okll4lnjq2gqstgk@thunk.org>
Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:43:16 -0400
From:   Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:     Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>
Cc:     Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6 linux-next] ext4: avoid EXT4_INODE_EXTENTS double
 checking

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:03:15PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> ext4_collapse_range() and ext4_insert_range()
> already checked inode flag at the beginning of function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>

Actually, these checks are required since the check at the beginning
are done before taking the inode lock.

One could argue that we should get rid of the first check, since we
don't need to optimize for the error case.  But removing the second
check is definitely wrong.

Cheers,

					- 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