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  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]
Date:	Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:50:20 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <>
To:	Al Viro <>
Cc:	Jan Kara <>, Stephen Rothwell <>,,,
	Mikulas Patocka <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs tree

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:17:54AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> I'm still not
> sure about ->statfs(), BTW - any input on that would be welcome.  Can
> it end up blocked on a frozen fs until said fs is thawed?

I don't see why this should ever happen - ->statfs has to work on
read-only filesystems so shoul dnot be modifying state, and hence
should never need to care about the frozen state of the superblock.
So from a ->statfs POV, a frozen filesystem should look just like a
read-only filesystem. If frozen filesystems are holding locks that
->statfs can block on until the filesystem us thawed, then I'd
consider that a bug in the filesystem freeze implementation....

> to convert ustat(2) to "wait for thaw" semantics (should be interruptible,
> BTW) or document that ->statfs() is not allowed to wait for thawing.
> It's far too subtle to leave undocumented...

The latter, IMO.


Dave Chinner
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists