linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] vfs pile 1

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]

Date:	Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:40:01 -0500
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Toshiyuki Okajima <toshi.okajima@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs pile 1

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 01:36:22PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> There are a couple of options:
> 
> a) leave it as it is
> 
> b) change that set_nlink() in xfs into a 
> 
>   if (nlink)
> 	set_nlink(nlink);
>   else
> 	clear_nlink();
> 
> c) remove the printk from set_nlink().  This effectively makes
> set_nlink(0) an alias of clear_nlink().
> 
> IIRC your preference is c.  What do others think?

Yes.  a) really isn't an option - we don't want to spew thousands of
useless messages during a log recovery for an operation that's totally
normal.  b) is okay, too - but it's not just xfs that needs to be
covered, but any fs that support the concept of recovering from open
but unlinked inodes after a crash.  It's just that no one else seems
to have regular QA for that code path.

--
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/