linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 13/14] xfs: prepare xfs_break

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]

Date:   Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:50:43 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 13/14] xfs: prepare xfs_break_layouts() for another
 layout type

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>> +     ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED | XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL
>> +                             | (reason == BREAK_UNMAPI
>> +                                     ? XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL : 0)));
>
> please split the assert, e.g.:
>
>         ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED | XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL));
>
>         switch (reason) {
> +       case BREAK_UNMAPI:
>                 ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL));

Sure, I was thinking to keep it out of the loop, but the common case
is that this loop only iterates once.

>> +             /* fall through */
>> +     case BREAK_WRITE:
>> +             error = xfs_break_leased_layouts(inode, iolock, &did_unlock);
>> +             break;
>> +     default:
>> +             error = -EINVAL;
>> +             break;
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     return error;
>
> I have to say I'd prefer BREAK_UNMAP over BREAK_UNMAPI given that weird
> I suffix doesn't buy us anything, but that's just a minor issue.

Ok will do.

> Otherwise looks good:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>