linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 03/22] ext4: Do not iput inode under running transaction in ext4

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]

Message-ID: <20191104123519.GA28764@mit.edu>
Date:   Mon, 4 Nov 2019 07:35:19 -0500
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/22] ext4: Do not iput inode under running transaction
 in ext4_mkdir()

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 03:37:01PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > We can certainly add it to the orphan list if it's necessary, but it's
> > extra overhead and adds a global contention point.  So if it's not
> > necessary, I'd rather avoid it if possible, and I think it's safe to
> > do so in this case.
> 
> As this is error cleanup path (only EIO and ENOSPC are realistic failure
> cases AFAICT) I don't think performance really matters here. I certainly
> don't want to add inode to orphan list in the fast path. I agree that would
> be non-starter. I'll try to write a patch and we'll see how bad it will be.
> If you still hate it, I can have a look into how bad it would be to fix
> ext4_symlink() and somehow deal with revoke reservation issues.

That seems fair; I agree, adding inodes to the list in the error path
shouldn't be an issue.

					- Ted