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:	Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:32:52 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Holger Kiehl <>
To:	Theodore Tso <>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <>,
	Jan Kara <>,,
	Nick Dokos <>,,
	linux-kernel <>
Subject: Re: Performance of ext4

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 11:41:17AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> It might be worth runninga "simple" fsx under your kernel too; last time
>> I tested fsx it was still happy and it exercises fs ops (including
>> truncate) at random...
> From what Holger described, it's doubtful that the bug is in the
> truncate operation.
Correct, the benchmark just copies, moves, hardlinks and deletes a lot
of small files. It also overwrites existing files but not at the same
scale it does the other operations.

> It sounds like i_size is actually dropping in
> size at some pointer long after the file was written.  If I had to
> guess the value in the inode cache is correct; and perhaps so is the
> value on the journal.  But somehow, the wrong value is getting written
> to disk (remember the jbd layer can keep up to three different
> versions of filesystem metadata in memory, because most of the time we
> don't block modifications to the filesystem while we are in the middle
> of writing a previous commit to disk).  So depending on whether the
> inode gets redirtied or not, the inconsistency could self-heal, and if
> the inode never gets pushed out of memory due to memory pressure, the
> problem might not be noticed until the system reboots or the
> filesystem is unmounted.
I always had the feeling that waiting a day or unmounting caused a lot
more truncation. On my system at home for example I mounted the test
filesystem again and saw that files where truncated and I am pretty sure
that when I looked at those files during and shortly after the test they
where still complete. But I will recheck and do test as you suggested.

What I find strange is that the missing parts of the file are not for
example exactly 512 or 1024 or 4096 bytes it is mostly some odd number
of bytes.


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