linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] writeback: reset inode dirty time when adding it back to empty s

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:44:01 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"jens.axboe@...cle.com" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: reset inode dirty time when adding it back
	to empty s_dirty list

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 07:16:33PM +0800, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:13:03 +0800
> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > They also don't eliminate the problematic check above. Regardless of
> > > whether your or Jens' patches make it in, I think we'll still need
> > > something like the following (untested) patch.
> > >
> > > If this looks ok, I'll flesh out the comments some and "officially" post
> > > it. Thoughts?
> >
> > It's good in itself. However with more_io_wait queue, the first two
> > chunks will be eliminated. Mind I carry this patch with my patchset?
> >
>
> It makes sense to roll that fix in with the stuff you're doing.
>
> If it's going to be a little while before your patches get taken into
> mainline though, it might not hurt to go ahead and push my patch in as
> an interim fix. It shouldn't change the behavior of the code in the
> normal case of a short-lived dirtied_when value, and should guard
> against major problems when there's a long-lived one.

I'm afraid my patchset will miss the 2.6.30 merge window, so it makes
sense to merge your patch first:

> From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] writeback: guard against jiffies wraparound on inode->dirtied_when checks

Acked-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/