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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 1 Feb 2019 23:08:11 -0500
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <>
To:     Jan Kara <>
CC:     Ext4 Developers List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "ext4: use ext4_write_inode() when fsyncing w/o a

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 10:21:20PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 31-01-19 23:42:19, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > This reverts commit ad211f3e94b314a910d4af03178a0b52a7d1ee0a.
> > 
> > As Jan Kara pointed out, this change was unsafe since it means we lose
> > the call to sync_mapping_buffers() in the nojournal case.  The
> > original point of the commit was avoid taking the inode mutex (since
> > it causes a lockdep warning in generic/113); but we need the mutex in
> > order to call sync_mapping_buffers().
> Actually, I don't think sync_mapping_buffers() needs inode mutex (i_rwsem
> these days). It uses blkdev_mapping->private_lock for synchronization of
> operations on the list of buffers and fsync_buffers_list() seems to be
> pretty careful about races with mark_buffer_dirty_inode(). So why do you
> think we need i_rwsem?

Hmm, I think you're right.  I wonder if we can therefore remove the
inode_lock() in __generic_file_fsync() then...   What do you think?

     			       		      	 - Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists