linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/14] fs/buffer: replace ll_rw

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:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:51:25 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        ntfs3@...ts.linux.dev, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
        reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz, tytso@....edu,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, rpeterso@...hat.com, agruenba@...hat.com,
        almaz.alexandrovich@...agon-software.com, mark@...heh.com,
        dushistov@...l.ru, hch@...radead.org, chengzhihao1@...wei.com,
        yukuai3@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] fs/buffer: replace ll_rw_block()

On Wed 31-08-22 15:21:00, Zhang Yi wrote:
> ll_rw_block() is not safe for the sync IO path because it skip buffers
> which has been locked by others, it could lead to false positive EIO
> when submitting read IO. So stop using ll_rw_block(), switch to use new
> helpers which could guarantee buffer locked and submit IO if needed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
> ---
>  fs/buffer.c | 13 ++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
> index a663191903ed..e14adc638bfe 100644
> --- a/fs/buffer.c
> +++ b/fs/buffer.c
...
> @@ -1342,7 +1342,8 @@ void __breadahead(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, unsigned size)
>  {
>  	struct buffer_head *bh = __getblk(bdev, block, size);
>  	if (likely(bh)) {
> -		ll_rw_block(REQ_OP_READ | REQ_RAHEAD, 1, &bh);
> +		if (trylock_buffer(bh))
> +			__bh_read(bh, REQ_RAHEAD, false);

I suppose this can be bh_readahead()?

>  		brelse(bh);
>  	}
>  }

Otherwise the patch looks good.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR