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: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:25:21 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/12] ext4: simplify i_state checks in __ext4_update_other_inode_time() On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:23:40PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > > I think a descriptively named inline helper in fs.h would really improve > > this.. > > Do you want this even though it is specific to how ext4 opportunisticly updates > other inodes in the same inode block as the inode being updated? That's the > only reason that I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW need to be checked; everywhere else > justs want I_DIRTY_TIME. > > We could add: > > static inline bool other_inode_has_dirtytime(struct inode *inode) > { > return (inode->state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE | > I_NEW | I_DIRTY_TIME)) == I_DIRTY_TIME; > } > > But it seems a bit weird when it's specific to ext4 at the moment. > > Are you thinking that other filesystems will implement the same sort of > opportunistic update, so we should add the helper now? For my taste these checks for flags is way too much black magic and will trivially break when people add new flags. So having a helper next to the definition of the I_* flags that is well documented would be very, very helpful. My preferred naming would be something along the lines of 'inode_is_dirty_lazytime_only()'.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists