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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 10:33:24 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc:     Jan Kara <>, Eric Biggers <>,
        Lukas Czerner <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] fs: record I_DIRTY_TIME even if inode already has

On Sat 20-08-22 23:14:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 01:21:24PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > 2) I_DIRTY_TIME flag passed to ->dirty_inode() callback. This is admittedly
> > bit of a hack. Currently XFS relies on the fact that the only time its
> > ->dirty_inode() callback needs to do anything is when VFS decides it is
> > time to writeback timestamps and XFS detects this situation by checking for
> > I_DIRTY_TIME in inode->i_state. Now to fix the race, we need to first clear
> > I_DIRTY_TIME in inode->i_state and only then call the ->dirty_inode()
> > callback (otherwise timestamp update can get lost). So the solution I've
> > suggested was to propagate the information "timestamp update needed" to XFS
> > through I_DIRTY_TIME in flags passed to ->dirty_inode().
> Maybe we should just add a separate update_lazy_time method to make this
> a little more clear?

Yes, we could do that if people prefer this. Although I'd say that good
documentation at the place in __mark_inode_dirty() where this gets used and
in documentation of .dirty_inode might clear the confusion as well.

Jan Kara <>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists