linux-kernel - Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 06/32] sched: Add task_struct->faults_disabled

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, 25 May 2023 01:58:13 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        cluster-devel@...hat.com, "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
        linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 06/32] sched: Add
 task_struct->faults_disabled_mapping

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 04:09:02AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Well, it seems like you are talking about something else than the
> > existing cases in gfs2 and btrfs, that is you want full consistency
> > between direct I/O and buffered I/O.  That's something nothing in the
> > kernel has ever provided, so I'd be curious why you think you need it
> > and want different semantics from everyone else?
> 
> Because I like code that is correct.

Well, start with explaining your definition of correctness, why everyone
else is "not correct", an how you can help fixing this correctness
problem in the existing kernel.  Thanks for your cooperation!