linux-kernel - Re: re-enable IOCB_NOWAIT writes to files v4

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260112-canceln-skript-95f066b9fcc1@brauner>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:22:11 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, 
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Mike Marshall <hubcap@...ibond.com>, 
	Martin Brandenburg <martin@...ibond.com>, Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>, Stefan Roesch <shr@...com>, 
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, gfs2@...ts.linux.dev, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, 
	devel@...ts.orangefs.org, linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: re-enable IOCB_NOWAIT writes to files v4

On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 11:05:58AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 11:04:17AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 08:32:47AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > > Umm, as in my self reply just before heading out for vacation, Julia
> > > > > found issues in it using static type checking tools.  I have a new
> > > > > version that fixes that and sorts out the S_* mess.  So please drop
> > > > > it again for now, I'll resend the fixed version ASAP.
> > > > 
> > > > It has never been pushed nor applied as I saw your mail right before all
> > > > of that.
> > > 
> > > Thanks.  But maybe you can fix up the applied messages to be more
> > > specific?  We had various issues in the past with them, where they
> > > were sent, but things did not end up in the tree for various reasons.
> > 
> > What are you thinking of exactly?
> 
> Only send out the applied message when something is actually pushed
> to the public tree?

When that happens it usually means that it's still waiting on tests.
I can pay more attention to this but don't expect it to be perfect in
all cases.