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: <87mxvc1ppy.fsf@openvz.org>
Date:	Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:32:09 +0400
From:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Do not zeroout uninitialized extents beyond i_size

"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:38:58 +0400, Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org> wrote:
>> "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> 
>> > 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.
>> For initialized extent beyond i_size? I've check fsck and seems that
>> is truly possible. So this optimization allow us to avoid some 
>> bad EIO situations. But we have to rework ext_get_blocks( ,create == 1)
>> to clear EXT4_EOFBLOCKS_FL if last block of latest_extent is requested.
>> I'll handle this.
>> >
>
>
> I thought this patch is going to reworked to use EOFBLOCKS_FL. But i see
> Ted sent a pull request with the this patch. Did I miss something ?
Sorry for a long replay.
As far as i can see EXT4_EOFBLOCKS_FL flag is now allowed for
uninitialized extents only in e2fslib. So we have to change e2fslib
first and then revert the kernel zeroout restriction logic.
--
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