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: <20191227053231.A103111C058@d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:02:30 +0530 From: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com> To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, "Berrocal, Eduardo" <eduardo.berrocal@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Optimize ext4 DIO overwrites On 12/26/19 10:47 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 08:28:23PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: >>> However depending on which patch lands first one may need a >>> re-basing. Will conflict with this- >>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=157613016931238&w=2 >> >> Yes, but the conflict is minor and trivial to resolve. >> > > Is this the correct resolution? > > --- a/fs/ext4/file.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/file.c > @@ -447,6 +447,7 @@ static ssize_t ext4_dio_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from) > struct inode *inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp); > loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos; > size_t count = iov_iter_count(from); > + const struct iomap_ops *iomap_ops = &ext4_iomap_ops; > bool extend = false, unaligned_io = false; > bool ilock_shared = true; > > @@ -526,7 +527,9 @@ static ssize_t ext4_dio_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from) > ext4_journal_stop(handle); > } > > - ret = iomap_dio_rw(iocb, from, &ext4_iomap_ops, &ext4_dio_write_ops, > + if (ilock_shared) > + iomap_ops = &ext4_iomap_overwrite_ops; > + ret = iomap_dio_rw(iocb, from, iomap_ops, &ext4_dio_write_ops, > is_sync_kiocb(iocb) || unaligned_io || extend); > > if (extend) > > Yes, this looks correct to me. Thanks -ritesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists