linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/3] ext4: don't use quota reservation for speculative metadata blocks

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: <20100412022027.GK1849@thunk.org>
Date:	Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:20:27 -0400
From:	tytso@....edu
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ext4: don't use quota reservation for speculative
 metadata blocks

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 04:45:52PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Because we can badly over-reserve metadata when we
> calculate worst-case, it complicates things for quota, since
> we must reserve and then claim later, retry on EDQUOT, etc.
> Quota is also a generally smaller pool than fs free blocks,
> so this over-reservation hurts more, and more often.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that it's not the worst thing to allow
> metadata to push a user slightly over quota.  This simplifies
> the code and avoids the false quota rejections that result
> from worst-case speculation.

This patch series looks good to me in general; Jan, it requires
relatively minor changes to the quota system, so it would be good to
get your Acked-by for the first two patches.  Since the changes to the
ext4 layer are more in-depth, any objections if I carry all three
patches in the ext4 tree?

					- Ted
--
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