linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 08/13] ext4: simplify i_state checks in __ext4_update_other_inode

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]

Message-ID: <20210107132412.GE12990@quack2.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jan 2021 14:24:12 +0100
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] ext4: simplify i_state checks in
 __ext4_update_other_inode_time()

On Mon 04-01-21 16:54:47, Eric Biggers wrote:
> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
> 
> Since I_DIRTY_TIME and I_DIRTY_INODE are mutually exclusive in i_state,
> there's no need to check for I_DIRTY_TIME && !I_DIRTY_INODE.  Just check
> for I_DIRTY_TIME.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/inode.c | 8 +++-----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index 4cc6c7834312f..9e34541715968 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -4962,14 +4962,12 @@ static void __ext4_update_other_inode_time(struct super_block *sb,
>  		return;
>  
>  	if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE | I_NEW |
> -			       I_DIRTY_INODE)) ||
> -	    ((inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME) == 0))
> +			       I_DIRTY_TIME)) != I_DIRTY_TIME)
>  		return;

This is OK.

>  	spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> -	if (((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE | I_NEW |
> -				I_DIRTY_INODE)) == 0) &&
> -	    (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME)) {
> +	if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE | I_NEW |
> +			       I_DIRTY_TIME)) != I_DIRTY_TIME) {

But this condition is negated AFAICT. We should have == I_DIRTY_TIME here
AFAICT.

								Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR