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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:26:26 +0200 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@...hat.com> CC: miklos@...redi.hu, jack@...e.cz, agruen@...e.de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jblunck@...e.de, hch@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/38] fallthru: ext2 fallthru support On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Valerie Aurora wrote: > > - hard links to make sure a separate inode is not necessary for each > > whiteout/fallthrough entry > > The problem with hard links is that you run into hard link limits. I > don't think we can do hard links for whiteouts and fallthrus. Each > whiteout or fallthru will cost an inode if we implement them as > extended attributes. This cost has to be balanced against the cost of > implementing them as dentries, which is mainly code complexity in > individual file systems. get_unlinked_inode() is a great idea. But I feel that individual inodes for each fallthrough is excessive. It'll make the first readdir() really really expensive and wastes a lot of disk and memory for no good reason. Not sure how to fix the hard link limits problem though... Thanks, Miklos -- 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