linux-kernel - [PATCH 13/49] ext4: ext4_mark_recovery_complete() doesn't need to use lock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1244488987-32564-14-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu>
Date:	Mon,  8 Jun 2009 15:22:31 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: [PATCH 13/49] ext4: ext4_mark_recovery_complete() doesn't need to use lock_super

The function ext4_mark_recovery_complete() is called from two call
paths: either (a) while mounting the filesystem, in which case there's
no danger of any other CPU calling write_super() until the mount is
completed, and (b) while remounting the filesystem read-write, in
which case the fs core has already locked the superblock.  This also
allows us to take out a very vile unlock_super()/lock_super() pair in
ext4_remount().

Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
---
 fs/ext4/super.c |   11 +----------
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
index e3b35f2..45d0ada 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
@@ -3219,13 +3219,11 @@ static void ext4_mark_recovery_complete(struct super_block *sb,
 	if (jbd2_journal_flush(journal) < 0)
 		goto out;
 
-	lock_super(sb);
 	if (EXT4_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RECOVER) &&
 	    sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY) {
 		EXT4_CLEAR_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RECOVER);
 		ext4_commit_super(sb, 1);
 	}
-	unlock_super(sb);
 
 out:
 	jbd2_journal_unlock_updates(journal);
@@ -3436,15 +3434,8 @@ static int ext4_remount(struct super_block *sb, int *flags, char *data)
 			    (sbi->s_mount_state & EXT4_VALID_FS))
 				es->s_state = cpu_to_le16(sbi->s_mount_state);
 
-			/*
-			 * We have to unlock super so that we can wait for
-			 * transactions.
-			 */
-			if (sbi->s_journal) {
-				unlock_super(sb);
+			if (sbi->s_journal)
 				ext4_mark_recovery_complete(sb, es);
-				lock_super(sb);
-			}
 		} else {
 			int ret;
 			if ((ret = EXT4_HAS_RO_COMPAT_FEATURE(sb,
-- 
1.6.3.2.1.gb9f7d.dirty

--
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/