linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: Do not zeroout uninitialized extents beyond i

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: <87och49oly.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:10:09 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	tytso@....edu, Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Do not zeroout uninitialized extents beyond i_size

On Fri,  9 Apr 2010 21:22:28 +0400, Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org> wrote:
> Zerrout trick allow us to optimize cases where it is more reasonable
> to explicitly zeroout extent and mark it as initialized instead of
> splitting to several small ones.
> But this optimization is not acceptable is extent is beyond i_size
> Because it is not possible to have initialized blocks after i_size.
> Fsck treat this as incorrect inode size.
> 

With commit c8d46e41bc744c8fa0092112af3942fcd46c8b18 if we set
EXT4_EOFBLOCKS_FL we should be able to have blocks beyond i_size.
May be the zero out path should set the flag instead of doing all these
changes. Zero-out is already complex with all the ENOSPC related
consideration. I guess we should try to keep it simple.

-aneesh
--
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