linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] gfs2: convert to errseq_t based writeback error reporting for fsync

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: <1501107773.15159.6.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:22:53 -0400
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        cluster-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] gfs2: convert to errseq_t based writeback error
 reporting for fsync

On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 12:21 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:55:38PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > @@ -668,12 +668,14 @@ static int gfs2_fsync(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end,
> >  		if (ret)
> >  			return ret;
> >  		if (gfs2_is_jdata(ip))
> > -			filemap_write_and_wait(mapping);
> > +			ret = file_write_and_wait(file);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return ret;
> >  		gfs2_ail_flush(ip->i_gl, 1);
> >  	}
> 
> Do we want to skip flushing the AIL if there was an error (possibly
> previously encountered)?  I'd think we'd want to flush the AIL then report
> the error, like this:
> 

I wondered about that. Note that earlier in the function, we also bail
out without flushing the AIL if sync_inode_metadata fails, so I assumed
that we'd want to do the same here. 

I could definitely be wrong and am fine with changing it if so.
Discarding the error like we do today seems wrong though.

Bob, thoughts?


>  		if (gfs2_is_jdata(ip))
> -			filemap_write_and_wait(mapping);
> +			ret = file_write_and_wait(file);
>  		gfs2_ail_flush(ip->i_gl, 1);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
>  	}
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>