linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] UDF tree 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]

Date:	Mon, 1 Dec 2008 08:33:36 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tibor.tajti@...il.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] UDF tree fixes

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Jan Kara wrote:
>
>   Yes, I would like to do it as well. But as I write in the changelog,
> currently there's no good callback for that (I've mailed about it at
> linux-fsdevel and noone had a better idea either). So for now I've just
> used this kludge to silence the Oops.

No, I meant just a simple "just call clear_inode() from 
udf_clear_inode()". But on a slightly closer look I notice that won't 
work, since it will just cause recursion (well, you could just clear the 
s_op field to avoid it, but that would be uglier than your fix).

I wonder if we should perhaps just move the invalidate_inode_buffers() 
call later in clear_inode(). That's a scary change, though. 

I just think your patch is pretty ugly. I'm sure it works, but I also 
suspect it indicates some kind of more fundamental problem. I also wonder 
why udf needs it but nobody else does (others do preallocation too)

		Linus
--
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/