linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't skip recovering inode depend on i

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: <b58aaf87-8ce4-12b1-c535-ea48d8eeee59@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Nov 2016 16:30:09 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <liushuoran@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't skip recovering inode depend on i_times

On 2016/11/4 2:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:26:56AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
>>
>> i_times of inode will be set with current system time which can be
>> configured through 'date', so it's not safe to judge dnode block as
>> garbage data depend on i_times.
> 
> This is not to detect garbage data, but to skip redundant unchanged inode.

Oops, seems 807b1e1c8e08 ("f2fs: do not recover from previous remained wrong
dnodes") did't describe like that. But after reading the codes, it looks like
the purpose of this change is to skip unchanged inode. So, commit log in
original is incorrect, right?

Thanks,