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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:02:47 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Alex Tomas <bzzz@....com>
Cc:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Potential bug in mballoc --- reusing data blocks before txn
	commit

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 08:35:21AM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
> why we need a tree? at least for the purpose of keeping blocks unavailable
> we'd need just a list as at commit we free them all.

For ext4, the only reason to use a tree would be to allow us to merge
deleted extents.  This might not be worth the complexity, though, I
admit it.

For ext3, we could use it to replace the the use of
bh->b_committed_data --- in which case, we would need to use a rbtree
so we can quickly look up to see which blocks can't be allocated yet.


>> The other thing which I should check is that if we are using this
>> scheme, I think we shouldn't need to keep the shadow copy of the block
>> bitmap buffers any more.  I would imagine we still need them for the
>> inode bitmaps, for the same reason, though.
>
> shadow copy holds preallocated blocks

Are we talking about the same thing?  I was referring to the
jh->b_committed_data, which isn't used by mballoc at all.

		      	    	       	  	     - Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists