linux-kernel - Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)

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: <457D89DA.5010705@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:39:54 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Steven Whitehouse <steve@...gwyn.com>
CC:	Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@...cle.com>,
	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)

Steven Whitehouse wrote:

>>Hmm, doesn't look like we can do this either because at least GFS2
>>uses BH_New for its own special things.
>>
> 
> What makes you say that? As far as I know we are not doing anything we
> shouldn't with this flag, and if we are, then I'm quite happy to
> consider fixing it up so that we don't,

Bad wording. Many other filesystems seem to only make use of buffer_new
between prepare and commit_write.

gfs2 seems to at least test it in a lot of places, so it is hard to know
whether we can change the current semantics or not. I didn't mean that
gfs2 is doing anything wrong.

So can we clear it in commit_write?

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/