linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] do not use s

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120327201401.GF5020@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:14:01 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Ext4 Mailing List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS Maling List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Maling List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] do not use s_dirt in ext4

On Tue 27-03-12 16:29:58, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 11:33 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> >   Then we have ext4_mark_super_dirty() call from 4 places - I forgot about
> > these originally... I kind of miss their purpose. Originally they were used
> > so that we write total number of free blocks and inodes in the superblock
> > but when we do not maintain them in the journal mode I don't see a reason
> > to periodically sync them in no-journal mode. Ted, what is the purpose of
> > these calls?
> 
> I do not understand what's the fundamental difference between journal
> and non-journal mode. Why when we do have the journal we do not mark the
> super-block as dirty in many places (e.g., in 'ext4_file_open()' - if we
> do have the journal, when do we make sure we save the mount point path
> change?).
  We write it at least during ext4_put_super().

> May be it has something to do with behaving like the ext2 driver when
> mounting ext2-formatted media with the the ext4 driver?
  I'm not really sure about this...

> Jan, since Ted did not answer, may be you can figure out the reasons
> from this commit message, which actually introduced the
> 'ext4_mark_super_dirty()' function?
  Anyway, attached are two patches which you can include in your series
and which should make your cleanups simpler.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

View attachment "0001-ext4-Remove-useless-marking-of-superblock-dirty.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1781 bytes)

View attachment "0002-ext4-Convert-last-user-of-ext4_mark_super_dirty-to-e.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1846 bytes)