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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:52:37 +0100
From:   Jan Kara <>
To:     Harshad Shirwadkar <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] ext4: misc fast commit fixes

On Sat 31-10-20 13:05:15, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote:
> This patch adds a small number of misc fast commit fixes. Along with
> functional fixes such as setting the right buffer flags, there also
> typo fixes and comment additions.
> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <>
> Signed-off-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <>

Again, please don't merge logically separate fixes into one commit.

> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.h b/fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.h
> index 00dc668e052b..10855cd230c7 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.h
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.h
> @@ -422,9 +422,13 @@ static inline int ext4_journal_force_commit(journal_t *journal)
>  static inline int ext4_jbd2_inode_add_write(handle_t *handle,
>  		struct inode *inode, loff_t start_byte, loff_t length)
>  {
> -	if (ext4_handle_valid(handle))
> +	if (ext4_handle_valid(handle)) {
> +		ext4_fc_track_range(handle, inode,
> +			start_byte >> inode->i_sb->s_blocksize_bits,
> +			(start_byte + length) >> inode->i_sb->s_blocksize_bits);
>  		return jbd2_journal_inode_ranged_write(handle,
>  				EXT4_I(inode)->jinode, start_byte, length);
> +	}

Why this change? A good changelog would tell me... I'm suspicious here
because ext4_jbd2_inode_add_write() gets called only in data=ordered mode
but fastcommit can run also in data=writeback mode...

I suppose this is for the mmap coverage we were speaking about. Now that
I'm speaking about it again maybe the ext4_fc_track_range() call in
ext4_map_blocks() is actually enough? I mean once we allocate blocks for a
range (either from page fault, write, or writeback of delalloc), they will
become properly tracked in ext4_map_blocks() and that's all we need? But
then I'm missing why we have so many ext4_fc_track_range() calls around the
code... Can you please explain?


Jan Kara <>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists