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: Sat, 29 Oct 2022 10:56:26 +0800 From: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev> To: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com> Cc: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: make ext4_mb_initialize_context return void Hi Ojaswin, On 10/28/22 6:54 PM, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 04:12:45PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote: >> >> On 10/27/22 2:29 PM, Jason Yan wrote: >>> On 2022/10/27 11:24, Guoqing Jiang wrote: >>>> Change the return type to void since it always return 0, and no need >>>> to do the checking in ext4_mb_new_blocks. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev> >>>> --- >>>> fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 10 ++-------- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c >>>> index 9dad93059945..5b2ae37a8b80 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c >>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c >>>> @@ -5204,7 +5204,7 @@ static void ext4_mb_group_or_file(struct >>>> ext4_allocation_context *ac) >>>> mutex_lock(&ac->ac_lg->lg_mutex); >>>> } >>>> -static noinline_for_stack int >>>> +static noinline_for_stack void >>>> ext4_mb_initialize_context(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac, >>>> struct ext4_allocation_request *ar) >>>> { >>>> @@ -5253,8 +5253,6 @@ ext4_mb_initialize_context(struct >>>> ext4_allocation_context *ac, >>>> (unsigned) ar->lleft, (unsigned) ar->pleft, >>>> (unsigned) ar->lright, (unsigned) ar->pright, >>>> inode_is_open_for_write(ar->inode) ? "" : "non-"); >>>> - return 0; >>>> - >>>> } >>>> static noinline_for_stack void >>>> @@ -5591,11 +5589,7 @@ ext4_fsblk_t ext4_mb_new_blocks(handle_t *handle, >>>> goto out; >>>> } >>>> - *errp = ext4_mb_initialize_context(ac, ar); >>>> - if (*errp) { >>>> - ar->len = 0; >>>> - goto out; >>>> - } >>>> + ext4_mb_initialize_context(ac, ar); >>> This changed the logic here slightly. *errp will not be intialized with >>> zero after this change. So we need to carefully check whether this will >>> cause any issues. >> Yes, thanks for reminder. I think "*errp" is always set later with below. >> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc2/source/fs/ext4/mballoc.c#L5606 >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc2/source/fs/ext4/mballoc.c#L5611 >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc2/source/fs/ext4/mballoc.c#L5629 >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc2/source/fs/ext4/mballoc.c#L5646 > Hi Guoqing, > > I agree, it seems to be intialized correctly later in the code. The > flow is something like: > > ext4_fsblk_t ext4_mb_new_blocks(...) > { > ... > ext4_mb_initialize_context(ac, ar); > ... > if (!ext4_mb_use_preallocated(ac)) { > *errp = ext4_mb_pa_alloc(ac); // *errp init to 0 on success > ... > } > > if (likely(ac->ac_status == AC_STATUS_FOUND)) { > // *errp init to 0 on success > *errp = ext4_mb_mark_diskspace_used(ac, handle, reserv_clstrs); > ... > } else { > ... > *errp = -ENOSPC; > } > ... > } Yes, thanks for the above. > So it seems like this cleanup won't alter the behavior. Feel free to, > add: > > Reviewed-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com> Appreciate for your review! Thanks, Guoqing
Powered by blists - more mailing lists