linux-ext4 - Re: FS: EXT4: should we sync error info in __ext4_grp_locked

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]

Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:48:05 -0500
From:   Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:     Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        inux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FS: EXT4: should we sync error info in __ext4_grp_locked_error?

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 03:13:15PM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
> Hi,
>     In function __ext4_grp_locked_error,   __save_error_info(sb, function, line)
> is called to save error info in super block block, but does not sync
> that information
> to disk to info the subsequence fsck after reboot. The reason, I guess
> maybe it is
> in locked state.
>     My question is why not make a call ext4_commit_super(sb, 1) after
> ext4_unlock_group(sb, grp) and  ext4_handle_error(sb), so that subsequence fsck
> after reboot is sure to be well informed.

Adding ext4_commit_super(sb, 1) between the calls to
ext4_unlock_group() and ext4_handle_error() is a good idea; it's not a
naive suggestion at all.

Cheers,

					- Ted