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:   Fri, 8 Jan 2021 09:54:32 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <>
To:     Eric Biggers <>
Cc:     Jan Kara <>,,,,, Theodore Ts'o <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] fs: avoid double-writing inodes on lazytime

On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 01:46:37PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> It looks like that's going to work, and it fixes the XFS bug too.
> Note that if __writeback_single_inode() is called from writeback_single_inode()
> (rather than writeback_sb_inodes()), then the inode might not be queued for
> sync, in which case mark_inode_dirty_sync() will move it to a writeback list.
> That's okay because afterwards, writeback_single_inode() will delete the inode
> from any writeback list if it's been fully cleaned, right?  So clean inodes
> won't get left on a writeback list.
> It's confusing because there are comments in writeback_single_inode() and above
> __writeback_single_inode() that say that the inode must not be moved between
> writeback lists.  I take it that those comments are outdated, as they predate
> I_SYNC_QUEUED being introduced by commit 5afced3bf281 ("writeback: Avoid
> skipping inode writeback")?

Yes.  I think we need to update the comment as well.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists