linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v9 5/9] ext4: main fast-commit commit path

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:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 15:14:07 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/9] ext4: main fast-commit commit path

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 05:54:47PM -0700, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote:
>  fs/jbd2/commit.c            |   42 ++
>  fs/jbd2/journal.c           |  119 +++-

Why are these changes here instead of the previous commit (jbd2: add
fast commit machinery)?

> diff --git a/fs/jbd2/commit.c b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> index ba35ecb18616..dadd9994e74b 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> @@ -202,6 +202,47 @@ static int journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space *mapping,
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +/* Send all the data buffers related to an inode */
> +int jbd2_submit_inode_data(journal_t *journal, struct jbd2_inode *jinode)
> +{
> +	struct address_space *mapping;
> +	loff_t dirty_start;
> +	loff_t dirty_end;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (!jinode)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	dirty_start = jinode->i_dirty_start;
> +	dirty_end = jinode->i_dirty_end;
> +
> +	if (!(jinode->i_flags & JI_WRITE_DATA))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	dirty_start = jinode->i_dirty_start;
> +	dirty_end = jinode->i_dirty_end;

Why is dirty_start and dirty_end initialized twice?

Also, this is going to conflcit with Mauricio's data=journal patches,
which you'll notice when you rebase these patches on the current dev branch.

(The dev branch temporarily had your v9 patches merged in, so we could
get the test bots to comment on your changes, but I've since pulled
the fc patches back out.)

					- Ted