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  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:   Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:31:47 +1000
From:   Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@...browski.org>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     tytso@....edu, jack@...e.cz, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org, darrick.wong@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] ext4: introduce direct IO write path using iomap
 infrastructure

On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:56:15PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> On 9/9/19 4:49 AM, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * For a write that extends the inode size, ext4_dio_write_iter() will
> > + * wait for the write to complete. Consequently, operations performed
> > + * within this function are still covered by the inode_lock().
> > + */
> Maybe add a comment that on success this returns 0.

OK, can do.

> > +static int ext4_dio_write_end_io(struct kiocb *iocb, ssize_t size, int error,
> > +				 unsigned int flags)
> > +{
> > +	int ret = 0;
> No need to initialize ret.
> 
> 
> > +	loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos;
> > +	struct inode *inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp);
> > +
> > +	if (error) {
> > +		ret = ext4_handle_failed_inode_extension(inode, offset + size);
> > +		return ret ? ret : error;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (flags & IOMAP_DIO_UNWRITTEN) {
> > +		ret = ext4_convert_unwritten_extents(NULL, inode,
> > +						     offset, size);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return ret;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (offset + size > i_size_read(inode)) {
> > +		ret = ext4_handle_inode_extension(inode, offset, size, 0);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return ret;
> > +	}
> > +	return ret;
> Directly return 0, since if it falls here it mans it is a success case.
> You are anyway returning error from above error paths.

OK, sure.

--<M>--

Powered by blists - more mailing lists