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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:31:30 +0530 From: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com> To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com> Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: delete invalid ac_b_extent backup inside ext4_mb_use_best_found() On 8/13/20 2:14 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Aug 7, 2020, at 5:32 AM, brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com> wrote: >> >> Delete invalid ac_b_extent backup inside ext4_mb_use_best_found(), >> we have done this operation in ext4_mb_new_group_pa() and >> ext4_mb_new_inode_pa(). > > I'm not sure I understand this patch completely. > > The calls to ext4_mb_new_group_pa() and ext4_mb_new_inode_pa() are > done from ext4_mb_new_preallocation(), which is called at the *end* > of ext4_mb_use_best_found() (i.e. after the lines that are being > deleted). > > Maybe I'm confused by the description "we *have done* this operation" > makes it seem like it was already done, but really it should be > "we *will do* this operation in ..."? > > That said, it would make more sense to keep the one line here in > ext4_mb_use_best_found() and remove the two duplicate lines in > ext4_mb_new_group_pa() and ext4_mb_new_inode_pa()? In that case, > the patch description would be more correct, like: > > Delete duplicate ac_b_extent backup in ext4_mb_new_group_pa() > and ext4_mb_new_inode_pa(), since we have done this operation > in ext4_mb_use_best_found() already. > Looked into the mballoc code and I agree with Andreas points here. -ritesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists