linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v6 19/20] xfs: minimal conversion to errseq

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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:27:22 -0400
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        tytso@....edu, axboe@...nel.dk, mawilcox@...rosoft.com,
        ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, corbet@....net,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 19/20] xfs: minimal conversion to errseq_t writeback
 error reporting

On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 21:30 -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:23:15AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Just set the FS_WB_ERRSEQ flag to indicate that we want to use errseq_t
> > based error reporting. Internal filemap_* calls are left as-is for now.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > index 455a575f101d..28d3be187025 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > @@ -1758,7 +1758,7 @@ static struct file_system_type xfs_fs_type = {
> >  	.name			= "xfs",
> >  	.mount			= xfs_fs_mount,
> >  	.kill_sb		= kill_block_super,
> > -	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV,
> > +	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV | FS_WB_ERRSEQ,
> 
> Huh?  Why are there two patches with the same subject line?  And this
> same bit of code too?  Or ... 11/13, 11/20?  What's going on here?
> 
> <confused>
> 
> --D

Oh my -- sorry about that. I ended up with two different interleaved
patchsets. The /20 series is the one I meant to send.

Just ignore these for now though, as I'll be sending a v7 (at least) to
address HCH's comments.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>