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: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 09:54:32 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 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>, stable@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] fs: avoid double-writing inodes on lazytime expiration 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 I take it that those comments are outdated, as they predate 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