| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <00c201c7a338$e238ae50$4168010a@bsd.tnes.nec.co.jp> Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:05:06 +0900 From: "Takashi Sato" <sho@...s.nec.co.jp> To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: "linux-ext4" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Online defragmentation Hi, >> 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. Your understanding is right. The iput() is called to free the old blocks which were in the original inode. Cheers, Takashi - 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