linux-ext4 - Re: Potential bug in mballoc --- reusing data blocks before txn commit

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

Message-id: <48E1AC89.6050803@sun.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:35:21 +0400
From:	Alex Tomas <bzzz@....com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Potential bug in mballoc --- reusing data blocks before txn	commit

Theodore Tso wrote:
> Yeah, I know Andrian Bunk strikes again....  but the right answer is
> to ressurect that code and add it back.

indeed

> Well, we need to keep this information for the SSD Trim command
> anyway; so probably the right approach is to keep a red/black tree of
> extents that need to be freed, and then when the commit callback is
> called, we can update the appropriate mballoc data structures and call
> the SSD trim command if necessary.

why we need a tree? at least for the purpose of keeping blocks unavailable
we'd need just a list as at commit we free them all.

> The other thing which I should check is that if we are using this
> scheme, I think we shouldn't need to keep the shadow copy of the block
> bitmap buffers any more.  I would imagine we still need them for the
> inode bitmaps, for the same reason, though.

shadow copy holds preallocated blocks

thanks, Alex

--
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