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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 08:26:27 +0200 From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> To: Jiang Ying <jiangying8582@....com>, Wang Long <wanglong19@...tuan.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: fix direct I/O read error > Fixes: 9fe55eea7e4b ("Fix race when checking i_size on direct i/o read"). * I suggest to move this tag to the bottom of the commit message. * This specification is usually preferred without a dot at the line end. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=9ebcfadb0610322ac537dd7aa5d9cbc2b2894c68#n183 > This commit caused ext4 direct I/O read error when the read size is not > alignment with block size. Wording alternative: aligned … > (1) Make the file that is not alignment with block size: … a file … aligned … > (3) Compiling the script: (3) Compile the source file: > (4) Exec the script: (4) Run the test program: > … Thanks. I propose to omit this word here. > --- > fs/ext4/inode.c | 6 ++++++ Would you like to add patch version descriptions here? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=9ebcfadb0610322ac537dd7aa5d9cbc2b2894c68#n751 … > @@ -3821,6 +3821,12 @@ static ssize_t ext4_direct_IO_read(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) > struct inode *inode = mapping->host; > size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter); > ssize_t ret; > + loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos; > + loff_t size; > + > + size = i_size_read(inode); How do you think about to use the following source code variant? + loff_t size = i_size_read(inode); > + if (offset >= size) > + return 0; Will any further fine-tuning matter for this function implementation? Regards, Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists