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: <20200519193141.GG2396055@mit.edu> Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 15:31:41 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> To: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> 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 <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> Thanks, applied. - Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists