linux-kernel - Re: [patch|rfc] block: don't mark buffers beyond end of disk as mapped

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]

Message-ID: <CAPa8GCBA0XwBH=D0rem5aC=FfLKSTGXaKOb4Mox2ad5kkc7LNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 May 2012 09:22:33 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	jaxboe@...ionio.com, Kyle McMartin <kmcmarti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch|rfc] block: don't mark buffers beyond end of disk as mapped

On 2 May 2012 06:37, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
> Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> writes:

>> In fact, it's probably good to unify the checks here, i.e., use max_blocks()
>
> You really think it's worth it?  I mean, it's just an i_size_read and a
> shift, and there is precedent for it inside fs/buffer.c.  I'd prefer to
> keep the patch as-is, but will change it if you feel that strongly about
> it.

Well, I'd just like it to use identical code (because they potentially
set up buffer heads for one another to use).

I don't feel too strongly, so if anyone else does one way or the
other, that is fine. But seeing as you've updated the patch...
--
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/