linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: fix some small problems

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: <CAAXPY_LMr3a8D=YB0-My9gZqbGQBMN3sic3-1wnicRhnT8F+_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:34:08 -0600
From:   Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...sity.com>
To:     Gang He <ghe@...e.com>
Cc:     Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: fix some small problems

Hi Gang, one small comment below:

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Gang He <ghe@...e.com> wrote:
> First, move setting fe_done = 1 in spin lock, avoid bring
> any potential race condition. Second, tune mlog message level
> from ERROR to NOTICE, since the message should not belong to
> error message.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gang He <ghe@...e.com>
> ---
>  fs/ocfs2/filecheck.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> @@ -545,11 +545,11 @@ static ssize_t ocfs2_filecheck_store(struct kobject *kobj,
>         spin_lock(&ent->fs_fcheck->fc_lock);
>         if ((ent->fs_fcheck->fc_size >= ent->fs_fcheck->fc_max) &&
>             (ent->fs_fcheck->fc_done == 0)) {
> -               mlog(ML_ERROR,
> +               mlog(ML_NOTICE,
>                 "Cannot do more file check "
>                 "since file check queue(%u) is full now\n",
>                 ent->fs_fcheck->fc_max);
> -               ret = -EBUSY;
> +               ret = -EAGAIN;

This change wasn't described in the patch header. Granted, from the
message above the change, -EAGAIN certainly seems a more reasonable
return value but it would be good to know whether this was intended
and why.

Thanks,
   --Mark