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  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, 30 May 2007 13:18:07 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <>
To:	Takashi Sato <>
CC:	linux-ext4 <>
Subject: Re: Online defragmentation

Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Hi Takashi,
> I was looking at online defrag code and found that the tmp_inode is 
> created with tmp_inode->i_nlink equal to zero. Now i am not sure whether 
> i understand the code correctly, but AFAIU we allocate contiguous block 
> using this tmp_inode. That means tmp_inode have extent details 
> corresponding to the blocks. Now we are mapping the file data found in 
> the original inode to this new blocks. Towards the end we does a iput. 
> In iput since we have i_nlink as zero it will go ahead and call 
> generic_delete_inode which will cause these data blocks to be marked 
> free (right ?)

Looking at the code again i guess for defragmentation it is okey. I 
guess what actually happens is the blocks that is corresponding to the 
original inode get accounted under tmp_inode. (it actually does a swap 
of blocks ) So doing a iput with i_nlink = 0 is the correct approach.

Correct me if i am wrong.

Sorry for the noise.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists