linux-ext4 - Re: Help on Implementation of EXT3 type Ordered Mode in EXT4

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:05:22 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Kailas Joshi <kailas.joshi@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Help on Implementation of EXT3 type Ordered Mode in EXT4

  Hi,

> I recently found that in EXT4 with delayed block the Ordered mode does not
> bahave same as in EXT3.
> I found a patch for this at http://lwn.net/Articles/324023/, but it has some
> journal block estimation problem resulting into deadlock.
> 
> I would like to know if it has been solved.
> If not, is it possible to solve it? What are the complexities involved?
  It has not been solved. The problem is that to commit data on transaction
commit (which is what data=ordered mode has historically done), you have to
allocate space for these blocks. But that allocation needs to modify a
filesystem and thus journal more blocks... And that is tricky - we would have
to reserve space in the current transaction for allocation of delayed data.  So
it gets a bit messy...
  Why exactly do you need the old data=ordered guarantees?

									Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SuSE CR Labs
--
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