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]
Date:   Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:15:23 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.de>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
        Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@....com>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] iomap: fall back to buffered writes for invalidation
 failures

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 08:18:50AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 01:37:49PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 08:31:57PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Failing to invalid the page cache means data in incoherent, which is
> > > a very bad state for the system.  Always fall back to buffered I/O
> > > through the page cache if we can't invalidate mappings.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> > > Acked-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.com>
> > 
> > For the iomap and xfs parts,
> > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
> > 
> > But I'd still like acks from Ted, Andreas, and Damien for ext4, gfs2,
> > and zonefs, respectively.
> > 
> > (Particularly if anyone was harboring ideas about trying to get this in
> > before 5.10, though I've not yet heard anyone say that explicitly...)
> 
> Why would we want to wait another whole merge window?

Well it /is/ past -rc6, which is a tad late...

OTOH we've been talking about this for 2 months now and most of the
actual behavior change is in xfs land so maybe it's fine. :)

--D

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ