linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] afs: Stop implementing ->writepage()

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:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 08:28:57 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] afs: Stop implementing ->writepage()

Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:

> >  (1) afs_write_back_from_locked_folio() could be called directly rather
> >      than calling filemap_fdatawrite_wbc(), but that would avoid the
> >      control group stuff that wbc_attach_and_unlock_inode() and co. seem to
> >      do.  Do I actually need to do this?
> 
> That would be much preferred over the for_write_begin hack, given that
> write_begin really isn't a well defined method but a hacky hook for
> legacy write implementations.

So I don't need to worry about the control group stuff?  I'll still need some
way to flush a conflicting write whatever mechanism is being used to write to
the page cache.

David