linux-ext4 - Re: Bug in ext4/btrfs fallocate?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4D1AF923.1090502@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:02:27 +0100
From:	Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	tytso@....edu, chris.mason@...cle.com
Subject: Re: Bug in ext4/btrfs fallocate?

Il 29/12/2010 07:46, Andreas Dilger ha scritto:
> On 2010-12-28, at 09:06, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>> it seems that ext4/btrfs code for fallocate doesn't check for
>> immutable/append inode flag.
> 
> fallocate() probably shouldn't be allowed for immutable files, but it makes a lot of sense to call fallocate() on append-only files to avoid fragmentation, though it should only be called with the KEEP_SIZE flag.
> 
> Cheers, Andreas
> 

It seems that only ocfs2 does that check, however I think not checking
for immutable flag is an error, for the append case maybe you're right,
doing this operation on append-only files has got sense.

Marco
--
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