linux-ext4 - Re: Online defragmentation

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]

Message-ID: <465D2C37.9080905@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
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