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]
Date:	Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:59:22 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <>
To:	Holger Kiehl <>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <>,
	Jan Kara <>,,
	Nick Dokos <>,,
	linux-kernel <>
Subject: Re: Performance of ext4

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 08:32:52AM +0000, Holger Kiehl wrote:
>> It sounds like i_size is actually dropping in
>> size at some pointer long after the file was written.  If I had to

sorry, "at some point"...
>> 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 

Or, "the right value is never getting written to disk".  (Which as I
think about it is more likely; it's likely that an update to i_size is
getting *lost*, perhaps because the delalloc code is possibly
modifying i_size without starting a transaction first.  Again this is
just a guess.)

> 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.

Is there any chance the truncation point is related to how the program
is writing its output file?  i.e., if it is a text file, is the
truncation happening after a new-line or when the stdio library might
have done an explicit or implicit fflush()?

							- Ted
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