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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:18:07 +0530 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Takashi Sato <sho@...s.nec.co.jp> CC: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> 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. -aneesh - 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