linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] fsfreeze: freeze_super and thaw

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: <20100615000107.GJ6590@dastard>
Date:	Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:01:07 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, josef@...hat.com, jeffmerkey@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] fsfreeze: freeze_super and thaw_bdev don't play
 well together

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:22:19AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This breaks the "feature" that we can freeze a block device that doesn't
> have a filesystem mounted yet.  For filesystems using get_sb_bdev that
> prevents a new filesystem to be mounted on them.
>
> I'm not sure it's a particularly useful feature, but it's been there
> since day 1 of the freeze support.  The easiest way to not break it
> would be to keep the per-sb freeze count only for that case and only
> check it during mount.

You mean the per-bdev freeze count, right? So freeze/thaw_bdev would
have to remain?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/