On Wed 04-01-12 16:15:04, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2012-01-04, at 10:46 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 03-01-12 02:31:52, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> >>
> >> The EXT{3,4}_IOC_SETVERSION ioctl() updates the inode without i_mutex,
> >> this can lead to a race with the other operations that update the same
> >> inode.
> >>
> >> Patch tested.
> >
> > OK, so I've taken the patch into my tree, just updated the changelog
> > which result of our discussion in this thread. I also took the ext4 part
> > since there is no risk of conflict and the patch looks obvious.
>
> Actually, I'd like to hear more about whether this is a real problem, or
> if it is just a theoretical problem found during code inspection or from
> some static code analysis tool?
As far as I understood that was just a theoretical issue and I applied
the patch just on the grounds that it is more consistent to use i_mutex for
i_generation changes.
> With the metadata checksum feature we were discussing using the inode
> generation as part of the seed for the directory leaf block checksum, so
> that it wasn't possible to incorrectly access stale directory blocks from
> a previous incarnation of the same inode number.
>
> We were discussing just disabling this ioctl on filesystems with metadata
> checksums, and printing a deprecation warning for filesystems without that
> feature enabled. I'm not aware of any real-world use for this ioctl, since
> NFS cannot use it to reconstruct handles because there's no API to allocate
> an inode with a specific number, so setting the generation is pointless.
OK, I didn't know this. I'm fine with deprecating the ioctl if it's
useless but since that's going to take a while I think the cleanup still
makes some sense.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
