linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH block/for-linus] writeback: flush inode cgroup wb switches instead of pinning super

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: <20160229210800.GY3965@htj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:08:00 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Nauman Rafique <nauman@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH block/for-linus] writeback: flush inode cgroup wb
 switches instead of pinning super_block

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:06:15PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > Hmmm?  The flushing is done after shrink_dcache_for_umount() and
> > sync_filesystems().  Aren't inodes supposed to stay clean after that?
> 
> s/shrink_dcache_for_umount/fsnotify_unmount_inodes/ - sorry.

Is that allowed to dirty indoes and initiate writebacks again, after
sync_filesystems() is done?  That sounds weird but it's trivial to
move cgroup_writeback_umount() below that if so.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun