linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] exfat: add super block operations

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:   Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:17:52 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
Cc:     'Daniel Wagner' <dwagner@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        valdis.kletnieks@...edu, hch@....de, linkinjeon@...il.com,
        Markus.Elfring@....de, sj1557.seo@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] exfat: add super block operations

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 06:22:28PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > No idea what the code does. But I was just skimming over and find the
> > above pattern somehow strange. Shouldn't this be something like
> Right.
> 
> > 
> > 	if (!READ_ONCE(sbi->s_dirt)) {
> > 		WRITE_ONCE(sbi->s_dirt, true);
> 
> It should be :
> 	if (READ_ONCE(sbi->s_dirt)) {
>  		WRITE_ONCE(sbi->s_dirt, false);
> I will fix it on v3.

The other option would be to an unsigned long flags field and define
bits flags on it, then use test_and_set_bit, test_and_clear_bit etc.
Which might be closer to the pattern we use elsewhere in the kernel.