linux-kernel - Re: [linux-usb-devel] 2.6.20 kernel hang with USB drive and vfat doing ftruncate

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]

Date:	Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:54:19 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
	<linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] 2.6.20 kernel hang with USB drive and vfat
 doing ftruncate

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:50:23 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:

> > +	if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) {
> 
> Is that really the correct test?  I don't know enough about the memory 
> management subsystem to say one way or the other.  What's special about 
> having both flags set?

yup.  We're saying "if the caller is unable to take either IO locks or FS
locks, don't wait on FS or IO completion".

ie: don't wait on writeout progress unless we know that both the IO system
and the FS are able to make progress.
-
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/