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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 8 Aug 2022 09:08:10 +1000
From:   Dave Chinner <>
To:     Lukas Czerner <>
        Christoph Hellwig <>, Jan Kara <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] fs: record I_DIRTY_TIME even if inode already has

On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 12:53:39PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> Currently the I_DIRTY_TIME will never get set if the inode already has
> I_DIRTY_INODE with assumption that it supersedes I_DIRTY_TIME.  That's
> true, however ext4 will only update the on-disk inode in
> ->dirty_inode(), not on actual writeback. As a result if the inode
> already has I_DIRTY_INODE state by the time we get to
> __mark_inode_dirty() only with I_DIRTY_TIME, the time was already filled
> into on-disk inode and will not get updated until the next I_DIRTY_INODE
> update, which might never come if we crash or get a power failure.
> The problem can be reproduced on ext4 by running xfstest generic/622
> with -o iversion mount option.
> Fix it by allowing I_DIRTY_TIME to be set even if the inode already has
> I_DIRTY_INODE. Also make sure that the case is properly handled in
> writeback_single_inode() as well. Additionally changes in
> xfs_fs_dirty_inode() was made to accommodate for I_DIRTY_TIME in flag.
> Thanks Jan Kara for suggestions on how to make this work properly.
> Cc: Dave Chinner <>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <>
> Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <>
> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <>
> ---
> v2: Reworked according to suggestions from Jan


> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> index aa977c7ea370..cff05a4771b5 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> @@ -658,7 +658,8 @@ xfs_fs_dirty_inode(
>  	if (!(inode->i_sb->s_flags & SB_LAZYTIME))
>  		return;
> -	if (flag != I_DIRTY_SYNC || !(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME))
> +	if ((flag & ~I_DIRTY_TIME) != I_DIRTY_SYNC ||
> +	    !((inode->i_state | flag) & I_DIRTY_TIME))
>  		return;

My eyes, they bleed. The dirty time code was already a horrid
abomination, and this makes it worse.

>From looking at the code, I cannot work out what the new semantics
for I_DIRTY_TIME and I_DIRTY_SYNC are supposed to be, nor can I work
out what the condition this is new code is supposed to be doing. I
*can't verify it is correct* by reading the code.

Can you please add a comment here explaining the conditions where we
don't have to log a new timestamp update?

Also, if "flag" now contains multiple flags, can you rename it



Dave Chinner

Powered by blists - more mailing lists