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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:22:24 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <>
To:	Jan Kara <>
CC:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC] ext4: Semantics of delalloc,data=ordered

Jan Kara wrote:
>>>   Imagine you have a file with blocks 1 and 3 allocated and block 2 is a
>>> hole. You write blocks 1-3. Block 2 isn't allocated because of delalloc.
>>> Now if inode is already in the current transaction's list, during commit
>>> writes to blocks 1 and 3 will land on disk but write to block 2 will
>>> happen only after pdflush finds it.
>> And that should be fine with data=ordered mode right ?. Because since
>> block 2 is not yet allocated we don't have associated meta-data. So
>> even if we crash we have meta-data pointing to 1 and 3 and not 2. The
>> problem is only when we write the meta-data pointing to block 2 and not
>> block 2 itself ?.
>   Yes, it is correct. I may be just surprising (we didn't do things like
> this in data=ordered mode before).

Will it even be surprising?  "fill-in-hole; crash;" today may give you
the same thing, right?  It's just that with delalloc it might be a
bigger window in time for this to happen?

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