linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] jbd: fix error handling for checkpoint io (rebased)

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: <20080514144410.GG24363@duck.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 14 May 2008 16:44:10 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Josef Bacik <jbacik@...hat.com>
Cc:	Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, sct@...hat.com,
	adilger@...sterfs.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
	Satoshi OSHIMA <satoshi.oshima.fk@...achi.com>,
	sugita <yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] jbd: fix error handling for checkpoint io (rebased)

> >  
> > Index: linux-2.6.26-rc2/fs/ext3/super.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.26-rc2.orig/fs/ext3/super.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.26-rc2/fs/ext3/super.c
> > @@ -395,7 +395,10 @@ static void ext3_put_super (struct super
> >  	ext3_xattr_put_super(sb);
> >  	journal_destroy(sbi->s_journal);
> >  	if (!(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
> > -		EXT3_CLEAR_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT3_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RECOVER);
> > +		if (!is_checkpoint_aborted(sbi->s_journal)) {
> > +			EXT3_CLEAR_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb,
> > +				EXT3_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RECOVER);
> > +		}
> >  		es->s_state = cpu_to_le16(sbi->s_mount_state);
> >  		BUFFER_TRACE(sbi->s_sbh, "marking dirty");
> >  		mark_buffer_dirty(sbi->s_sbh);
> 
> Is this bit here really needed?  If we abort the journal the fs will be mounted
> read only and we should never get in here.  Is there a case where we could abort
> the journal and not be flipped to being read-only?  If there is such a case I
> would think that we should fix that by making the fs read-only, and not have
> this check.
  Actually, journal_abort() (which could be called from journal_destroy())
does nothing to the filesystem as such. So at this moment, ext3 can still
happily think everything is OK. We only detect aborted journal in
ext3_journal_start_sb() and call ext3_abort() in that case, which does all
that is needed...

									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/