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 16:19:34 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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 10:23:37AM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 02:12:36PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Since it's a ratelimited printk there won't be thousands of messages.  I
> > think this is just a cosmetic issue and lack of QA isn't a problem.  If
> > the messages are bothersome it can be fixed.
> 
> We're going to spew messages in ext3/4 for orphan inodes as well
> (thanks for Cristoph for pointing that out).  I can put in a similar
> kludge, but maybe there should be a _set_nlink() that skips the check?
> We do our own more sophisticated check in and will do appropriate
> error handling in ext4_iget() anyway, so it's just a waste in that
> particular codepath anyway.

Looking at the callers, I'm not sure we want that warning in set_nlink()
at all, rate-limited or not.  Note that it can trigger on the things
like stale NFS fhandle coming in for something that had been deleted
a while ago - IOW, it's neither a kernel bug nor fs corruption.
inc_nlink - sure, that might catch real bugs, drop_nlink - definitely,
but this...
--
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/