linux-ext4 - Adding META_BG/FLEX_BG awareness to inode allocator.

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:44:06 -0500
From:	"Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Adding META_BG/FLEX_BG awareness to inode allocator.

Hi Andreas, Ted,

I've been looking at the uninitialized block group patches to see how
they overlap with the uninitialized inode tables that I was looking
into for FLEX_BG and I think I can achieve the same thing using those
patches.  One of the things I wanted to achieve with uninitialized
inode tables was to pack inode for the same META/FLEX_BG and allocate
new inode tables as we ran out a pre-initialized inodes.  This is
something that applies to FLEX_BG since the layout of the meta-data has
changed.

It seams that the only thing that would prevent the uninitialized block
group patches from doing this is ialloc.c unawareness of
META_BG/FLEX_BG.  It seems like this is a good excuse to make inode and
block allocation algorithms aware of the new meta-data layout.

I could add META_BG/FLEX_BG awareness and see how the
allocation/initialization of inode changes and also see what sort of
performance impacts we see by these changes. 

Thoughts?

-JRS
-
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