| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:26:04 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>, fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] fuse: delete dead .write_begin and .write_end aops On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 05:05:20PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > The loop code still calls them uncondtionally. This actually is a big > > as write_begin and write_end require filesystems specific locking, > > and might require code in the filesystem to e.g. update the ctime > > properly. I'll let Miklos chime in if leaving them in was intentional, > > and if it was a comment is probably justified. > > Loop checks for ->write_begin() and falls back to ->write if the former > isn't defined. > > So I think the patch is fine. I tested loop over fuse, and it still > works after the patch. It works, but it involves another data copy, which will slow down various workloads that people at least historically cared about. And yes, unconditionally above was wrong - calls them if present without taking care of filesystem specific locking would be the right term. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists