linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/2] writeback, xfs: call dirty_inode() with I_DIRTY_TIME

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:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 14:43:25 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] writeback, xfs: call dirty_inode() with
 I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED when appropriate

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 01:37:59AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 01:58:38PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > Christoph, Dave --- does this give you the notification that you were
> > looking such that XFS could get the notification desired that it was
> > the timestamps need to be written back?
> 
> I need to look at it in more detail as it seems convoluted.  Also the
> order seems like you regress XFS in patch 1 and then fix it in patch 2?

In patch one we send I_DIRTY_SYNC as we had been doing as before.  So
I don't believe that patch #1 would regress XFS; can you confirm?

My thinking was to move ahead with patch 1 so that it fixed the bug
which Eric Biffers had reported for f2fs, but only to move forward
with patch #2 if it would be useful for XFS.

Cheers,

     	      	    	     	    - Ted