linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/16] GFS2: Core locking interface

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1157384401.3384.956.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Sep 2006 16:40:01 +0100
From:	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Russell Cattelan <cattelan@...hat.com>,
	David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] GFS2: Core locking interface

Hi,

On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 11:22 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> >Unfortunately thats not possible as the struct gfs2_sbd is actually
> >changed lower down the call chain, but only in the lock_dlm module.
> 
> +void gfs2_lm_unmount(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
> +{
> +	if (likely(!test_bit(SDF_SHUTDOWN, &sdp->sd_flags)))
> +		gfs2_unmount_lockproto(&sdp->sd_lockstruct);
> +}
> 
> I can't follow... test_bit does not modify *sdp or sdp->sd_flags, and
> gfs2_unmount_lockproto does not either.
> 
sd_lockstruct is part of the superblock and fields in the lockstruct are
changed by (for example) fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/mount.c: gdlm_unmount() so
I don't think its valid to mark the superblock const here (despite being
a great fan of using const in general).


Steve.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/