linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

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:	Wed, 16 May 2007 13:35:20 +0200
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...ybastard.org>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, akpm@...l.org,
	Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:37:36 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> 
> There are rather a lot of of FIXME comments, including scary stuff like
> 
>  > +	/*
>  > +	 * FIXME: this cannot be right but it does "fix" a bug of i_count
>  > +	 * dropping too low.  Needs more thought.
>  > +	 */
>  > +	atomic_inc(&old_dentry->d_inode->i_count);

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

> and
> 
>  > +int __logfs_write_inode(struct inode *inode)
>  > +{
>  > +	/*
>  > +	 * FIXME: Those two inodes are 512 bytes in total.  Not good to
>  > +	 * have on the stack.  Possibly the best solution would be to bite
>  > +	 * the bullet and do another format change before release and
>  > +	 * shrink the inodes.
>  > +	 */
>  > +	struct logfs_disk_inode old, new;
> 
> are you going to change the format?  or fix this some other way?

I would love to put my inodes on a diet.  It is just a matter of time
and priorities.  To me the 512 bytes on the stack are unfortunate, but
not a show stopper.  Crash behaviour is, so that has priority.

> I think a sweep through the code searching for FIXME and at least
> rewriting all such comments to look like stuff that can be deferred
> would be warranted ;)

Are you asking me to hide known problems under a rug? ;)

Will see if I can easily fix some of these.  In particular the
eat-your-data FIXME that can cause LogFS to not survive a crash.

Jörn

-- 
Correctness comes second.
Features come third.
Performance comes last.
Maintainability is easily forgotten.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/