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  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:   Tue, 19 May 2020 15:31:41 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <>
To:     Harshad Shirwadkar <>
Cc:, Jan Kara <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ext4: don't ignore return values from ext4_ext_dirty()

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 06:34:38PM -0700, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote:
> Don't ignore return values from ext4_ext_dirty, since the errors
> indicate valid failures below Ext4.  In all of the other instances of
> ext4_ext_dirty calls, the error return value is handled in some
> way. This patch makes those remaining couple of places to handle
> ext4_ext_dirty errors as well. In case of ext4_split_extent_at(), the
> ignorance of return value is intentional. The reason is that we are
> already in error path and there isn't much we can do if ext4_ext_dirty
> returns error. This patch adds a comment for that case explaining why
> we ignore the return value.
> In the longer run, we probably should
> make sure that errors from other mark_dirty routines are handled as
> well.
> Ran gce-xfstests smoke tests and verified that there were no
> regressions.
> Signed-off-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <>

Thanks, applied.

					- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists