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: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:21:04 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com> Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, khazhy@...gle.com, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 6/7] fs: Add more superblock error subtypes On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 03:15:42PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote: > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/watch_queue.h b/include/uapi/linux/watch_queue.h > index d0a45a4ded7d..6bfe35dc7b5d 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/watch_queue.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/watch_queue.h > @@ -110,6 +110,10 @@ enum superblock_notification_type { > NOTIFY_SUPERBLOCK_ERROR = 1, /* Error in filesystem or blockdev */ > NOTIFY_SUPERBLOCK_EDQUOT = 2, /* EDQUOT notification */ > NOTIFY_SUPERBLOCK_NETWORK = 3, /* Network status change */ > + NOTIFY_SUPERBLOCK_INODE_ERROR = 4, /* Inode Error */ > + NOTIFY_SUPERBLOCK_WARNING = 5, /* Filesystem warning */ > + NOTIFY_SUPERBLOCK_INODE_WARNING = 6, /* Filesystem inode warning */ > + NOTIFY_SUPERBLOCK_MSG = 7, /* Filesystem message */ > }; Hmm, I wonder if this is the right break down. In ext4 we have ext4_error() and ext4_error_inode(), but that's just a convenience so that if there is an error number, we can log information relating to the inode. It's unclear if we need to break apart *_WARNING and *INODE_WARNING in the notification types. So I'd suggest dropping *_INODE_ERROR and *_INODE_WARNING and let those get subsumed into *_ERROR and *_WARNING. We can include the __64 for block and inode numbers for *_ERROR and _*WARNING, which can be non-zero if they are available for a particular notification. I *do* thnk we should separate out file system error and blockdev warnings, however. So maybe NOTIFY_SUPERBLOCK_ERROR should be redifined to mean only "file system level error" and we should add a NOTIFY_SUPERBLOCK_EIO for an I/O errors coming from the block device. For that notification type, we can add a __u8 or __u32 containing the BLK_STS_* errors. I suspect in the future we should also consider a new block device notification scheme, where we can provide more detailed information such as SCSI sense codes, etc. But that's a separable feature, I think. Cheers, - Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists