linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 26/25] libext2fs: call get_alloc

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:	Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:57:50 -0700
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/25] libext2fs: call get_alloc_block hook when
 allocating blocks

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:35:51PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 03:34:47PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > Hmm... I wonder if we can get away with changing ext2fs_new_block2(fs,
> > > goal, bmap, ret_blk) so that if bmap is NULL, we change its behavior
> > > so that (a) it tries to use the get_alloc_block() hook if it is present, and
> > > (b) it will try to load the block bitmap if it is not already loaded,
> > > instead of returning an error.
> > 
> > Quite probably.  I tried to avoid API behavioral change, at least for the
> > inital patch, though I was thinking that a general cleanup was probably in
> > order.
> 
> It turns out that making a behavioral change could very well break
> some callers --- including e2fsck (see e2fsck_get_alloc_block for an
> example of wahy).  What I'm currently thinking about is an API sort of
> like this:

I currently patched that the stupid way -- by temporarily swapping
fs->get_alloc_block with NULL in new_block2() while we call the function
pointer.

(Also by fixing e2fsck.)

> errcode_t ext2fs_alloc_blocks(ext2_filsys fs, blk64_t goal,
> 	  	              unsigned int *num_blocks,
> 			      char *block_buf, int flags, blk64_t *ret)
> 
> ... which can be used to efficiently allocate up to *num_blocks blocks
> at a time, much like the mballoc interface.  I suspect that would be
> useful for a number of different cases, including ext2fs_fallocate and
> mk_hugefiles.c.

Sounds familiar:  http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=139898612510491&w=2

> What I'm currently wondering about is whether it's worth the interface
> complexity to have something like a "struct ext2fs_allocation_request"
> structure, so we can potentially add more hints that a future
> implementation might use, or whether that's not worth it.
> 
> What do folks think?

I'm not sure changing a struct vs. changing whatever parameters we feed into
that function is all that much different.  I guess you could get around
structure size changes by forcing callers to use a library allocator function.
But OTOH large allocations are probably rare.

--D

> 
> 					- 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
--
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