linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] unionfs: restructure unionfs

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: <200712182309.lBIN9haS032087@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
Date:	Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:09:43 -0500
From:	Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] unionfs: restructure unionfs_setattr 

In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712182213300.28390@...nde.wat.veritas.com>, Hugh Dickins writes:
> In order to fix unionfs truncation, we need to move the lower notify_change
> out of the loop in unionfs_setattr.  But when I came to do that, I couldn't
[...]

Hugh, I want to understand how patches 3/4 and 4/4 are related.  In patch 3
you say "in order to fix truncation" but you mention a truncation problem
only in patch 4; is there a patch ordering problem, or they're both related
to the same issue (with 3/4 being a code cleanup, and 4/4 actually fixing
the problem)?

What tests did you conduct to tickle this truncation problem: I assume
fsx-linux through unionfs, mounted on tmpfs?  Did that include both series
of patches (your 9 tmpfs patches, plus the two memcgrpoup?).

Thanks,
Erez.
--
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/