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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1498310166.4796.4.camel@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:16:06 -0400 From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> 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>, "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>, Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>, Eryu Guan <eguan@...hat.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.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 v7 16/22] block: convert to errseq_t based writeback error tracking On Sat, 2017-06-24 at 04:59 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:44:44PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > In order to query for errors with errseq_t, you need a previously- > > sampled point from which to check. When you call > > filemap_write_and_wait_range though you don't have a struct file and so > > no previously-sampled value. > > So can we simply introduce variants of them that take a struct file? > That would be: > > a) less churn > b) less code > c) less chance to get data integrity wrong Yeah, I had that thought after I sent the reply to you earlier. The main reason I didn't do that before was that I had myself convinced that we needed to do the check_and_advance as late as possible in the fsync process, after the metadata had been written. Now that I think about it more, I think you're probably correct. As long as we do the check and advance at some point after doing the write_and_wait, we're fine here and shouldn't violate exactly once semantics on the fsync return. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists