linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] Assign bdi in super

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: <1252952724.6866.62.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date:	Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:25:24 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, chris.mason@...cle.com,
	hch@...radead.org, tytso@....edu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] Assign bdi in super_block

On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 15:02 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 14-09-09 11:36:29, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > We do this automatically in get_sb_bdev() from the set_bdev_super()
> > callback. Filesystems that have their own private backing_dev_info
> > must assign that in ->fill_super().
> > 
> > Note that ->s_bdi assignment is required for proper writeback!
> > 
> > Acked-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
>   Hmm, looking at this again, I'm not sure this will work for NFS. It seems
> to set mapping->backing_dev_info to its private backing dev info for
> regular files while it leaves it intact for other inodes (e.g.
> directories). I'm not sure why it does so but it seems its inodes end up on
> two different BDI lists and thus they wouldn't be synced properly. Trond,
> do I read the code properly?
>   Also we definitely need to set *some* bdi in nfs_get_sb as otherwise sync
> won't work for it.

There hasn't really been a need for a bdi in NFS other than for the
regular file read and writeback code. The main reason for making it
private was to ensure that we could set a per-superblock readahead limit
that was a decent multiple of the server's preferred read block size.

Is there any reason why we couldn't set sb->s_bdi to point to that
private bdi?

Cheers
  Trond

--
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/