linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: Don't invalidate pagecache for invalid falloc modes

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, 11 Oct 2023 15:54:10 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@...omium.org>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Don't invalidate pagecache for invalid falloc
 modes

On 10/11/23 2:20 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/11/23 2:12 PM, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
>> Only call truncate_bdev_range() if the fallocate mode is
>> supported. This fixes a bug where data in the pagecache
>> could be invalidated if the fallocate() was called on the
>> block device with an invalid mode.
> 
> Fix looks fine, but would be nicer if we didn't have to duplicate the
> truncate_bdev_range() in each switch clause. Can we check this upfront
> instead?

Don't see a good way to do it on my end, so let's just go with what is
there now. I applied it with the commit message reformatted.

-- 
Jens Axboe