[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805090357500.3793@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 03:59:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 06/24] hpfs: dont call notify_change
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:13:33AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
> >
> > hpfs_unlink() calls notify_change() to truncate the file before
> > deleting. Replace with explicit call to hpfs_notify_change().
> >
> > This is equivalent, except that:
> > - security_inode_setattr() is not called before hpfs_notify_change()
> > - fsnotify_change() is not called after hpfs_notify_change()
> >
> > The truncation is just an implementation detail, so both the security
> > check and the notification are unnecessary.
> >
> > Possibly even the ctime modification is wrong?
>
> This code is rahter scary, as we'd lost the content without the file
> when the second remove_dirent attempt fails. Because of that we should
> at least keep the ctime change so an app can know the file was touched.
Unfortunatelly this is design bug in HPFS --- removing a dirent can
allocate more space. There's nothing that can be done about it. OS/2
crashes on panic when this situation is triggered :)
Mikulas
> Again, looks correct but I'm not convinced about all these changes.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists