linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC 1/2] ext4 resize: Mark the added group with EXT4_BG_INODE

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: <18731.57605.633119.670974@frecb006361.adech.frec.bull.fr>
Date:	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:27:01 +0100
From:	Solofo.Ramangalahy@...l.net
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Cc:	Solofo.Ramangalahy@...l.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] ext4 resize: Mark the added group with
	EXT4_BG_INODE_ZEROED flag

Andreas Dilger writes:
 > > As a side note, online resize and inode zeroing are "dual".
 > > 
 > > In order to obtain a filesystem with faster formating times one can
 > > do:
 > > . either format a smaller fs and then resize it,
 > > . or format the fs with lazy_itable_init
 > 
 > As discussed on the concall, it probably makes more sense to have the
 > resize code work by marking the inode tables UNINIT (if GDT_CSUM feature
 > is enabled)

If I understand correctly, this is already the case:
#define EXT4_BG_INODE_UNINIT    0x0001 /* Inode table/bitmap not in use */
#define EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT    0x0002 /* Block bitmap not in use */
#define EXT4_BG_INODE_ZEROED    0x0004 /* On-disk itable initialized to zero */

As the EXT4_BG_INODE_ZEROED is not present, the inode table is UNINIT.

By the way, is there any reason the #defines are like this, instead of:
#define EXT4_BG_INODE_UNINIT    0x0001 /* Inode table/bitmap not in use */
#define EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT    0x0002 /* Block bitmap not in use */
#define EXT4_BG_ITABLE_UNINIT   0x0004 /* On-disk itable not initialized */
?

 > and then start the "itable zeroing" thread, if it isn't
 > already running, to do the zeroing of the itable.

Yes.

Is there other resize changes you could think of?
While working on this, I noted this checkpatch error 
"ERROR: do not use assignment in if condition"
(but I am not sure of the exact justification).

Thanks,
-- 
solofo
--
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