linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: directory blocks must be treated as metadata by ext4

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]

Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:56:05 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: directory blocks must be treated as metadata by
	ext4_forget()

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:31:46PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> May be you want to merge the ext4_remove_blocks changes also. That make
> sure anybody reading code doesn't have to spent time in figuring out
> why ext4_forget is called with metadata = 0 and ext4_free_blocks is called
> with metadata = 1.

Yeah, I suppose so.  The reason why I didn't was because currently
ext4_forget() doesn't get called with metadata = 1 on the
direct/indirect-mapped path for directories and symlinks, and I
figured why not keep things consistent between those two callers of
ext4_forget().

Long term we should probably clean up the indirect path as well, I
suppose, and then remove the safety checks in ext4_free_blocks() and
ext4_forget().  That will save a tiny amount of CPU, which I doubt
anyone except Google will be able to measure or notice.  :-)

              	      	     	     	  - 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