linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 03/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->evict

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, 7 Oct 2021 09:43:49 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@....com>
Cc:     Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        overlayfs <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 03/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->evict_inode operation

On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 08:08, Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@....com> wrote:
>
> 在 2021/10/6 23:33, Miklos Szeredi 写道:
> > On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 15:08, Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net> wrote:
> >> Implement overlayfs' ->evict_inode operation,
> >> so that we can clear dirty flags of overlayfs inode.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>
> >> ---
> >>   fs/overlayfs/super.c | 7 +++++++
> >>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/super.c b/fs/overlayfs/super.c
> >> index 51886ba6130a..2ab77adf7256 100644
> >> --- a/fs/overlayfs/super.c
> >> +++ b/fs/overlayfs/super.c
> >> @@ -406,11 +406,18 @@ static int ovl_remount(struct super_block *sb, int *flags, char *data)
> >>          return ret;
> >>   }
> >>
> >> +static void ovl_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> >> +{
> >> +       inode->i_state &= ~I_DIRTY_ALL;
> >> +       clear_inode(inode);
> > clear_inode() should already clear the dirty flags; the default
> > eviction should work fine without having to define an ->evict_inode.
> > What am I missing?
>
> Yeah, you are right, we don't need overlayfs' own ->evict_inode anymore
>
> because we wait all writeback upper inodes in overlayfs' ->sync_fs.

Okay, I dropped this patch then.

Thanks,
Miklos