linux-ext4 - Re: Remarks regarding sparse

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:	Wed, 11 May 2016 20:50:32 +0200
From:	Damien Guibouret <damien.guibouret@...tition-saving.com>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Remarks regarding sparse_super2 feature

Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 05:23:58PM +0200, Damien Guibouret wrote:
> 
[...]
> 
> 
>>For the other case (shrinking the fs) at line 856:
>>			if (last_bg > 1 &&
>>			    old_fs->super->s_backup_bgs[1] == old_last_bg)
>>				fs->super->s_backup_bgs[1] = last_bg;
>>what ensures the location where the new super block backup will be set is a
>>free block?
> 
> 
> This is handled by reserve_sparse2_last_group().  We have to deal this
> sort of thing whenever we need to do things like grow the group
> descriptors, and we will relocate data blocks as necessary to make
> room for blocks that have to be at specific locations.  (This means we
> have allocate new blocks for the blocks we are moving, copy the data
> blocks, and then update the inode(s) to point the new block
> locations.)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 						- Ted

Hello,

Thanks for the feedback.
For the last point, you're right, I did not look deep enough in the remaining 
part of the code (and it looks obvious that when shrinking the fs, there is some 
need to reallocate blocks).

Regards,

Damien
--
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