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, 12 Aug 2022 11:12:27 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <>
To:     Lukas Czerner <>
        Christoph Hellwig <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] fs: record I_DIRTY_TIME even if inode already has

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 02:37:26PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.rst
> index 6cd6953e175b..5d72b6ba4e63 100644
> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.rst
> @@ -274,6 +274,8 @@ or bottom half).
>  	This is specifically for the inode itself being marked dirty,
>  	not its data.  If the update needs to be persisted by fdatasync(),
>  	then I_DIRTY_DATASYNC will be set in the flags argument.
> +	If the inode has dirty timestamp and lazytime is enabled
> +	I_DIRTY_TIME will be set in the flags.

The new sentence is not always true, since with this patch if
__mark_inode_dirty(I_DIRTY_INODE) is called twice on an inode that has
I_DIRTY_TIME, the second call will no longer include I_DIRTY_TIME -- even though
the inode still has dirty timestamps.  Please be super clear about what the
flags actually mean -- I'm still struggling to understand this patch...

- Eric

Powered by blists - more mailing lists