linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] block_dump: don't put the last refcount when marking inode dirty

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 5 Mar 2021 13:24:42 +0000
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     "zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@...wei.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block_dump: don't put the last refcount when marking
 inode dirty

On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 12:21:02PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hrm, ok. Honestly, I wanted to just delete that code for a long time. IMO
> tracepoints (and we have one in __mark_inode_dirty) are much more useful
> for tracing anyway. This code exists only because it was there much before
> tracepoints existed... Do you have a strong reason why are you using
> block_dump instead of tracepoint trace_writeback_mark_inode_dirty() for
> your monitoring?

Let me play devils advocate here, the downside of the writeback
tracepoints is that they only trace the inode number and not a file name
(component).  Which is also the reason they avoid this problem.

That being said block_dump is a horrible hack, and trace points are the
proper replacement.