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  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]
Date:	Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:03:07 -0700
From:	Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
To:	Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] ext4:Add a function merging extent right and
 left.

On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 22:40 -0700, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
> 1] Rename ext4_ext_try_to_merge() to ext4_ext_try_to_merge_right().
> 
> 2] Add a new function ext4_ext_try_to_merge() which tries to merge
>    an extent both left and right.
> 
> 3] Use the new function in ext4_ext_convert_unwritten_endio() and
>    ext4_ext_insert_extent().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/extents.c |   65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> index dd2cb50..11f30d2 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> @@ -1563,7 +1563,7 @@ ext4_can_extents_be_merged(struct inode *inode, struct ext4_extent *ex1,
>   * Returns 0 if the extents (ex and ex+1) were _not_ merged and returns
>   * 1 if they got merged.
>   */
> -static int ext4_ext_try_to_merge(struct inode *inode,
> +static int ext4_ext_try_to_merge_right(struct inode *inode,
>  				 struct ext4_ext_path *path,
>  				 struct ext4_extent *ex)
>  {
> @@ -1603,6 +1603,31 @@ static int ext4_ext_try_to_merge(struct inode *inode,
>  }
> 
>  /*
> + * This function tries to merge the @ex extent to neighbours in the tree.
> + * return 1 if merge left else 0.
> + */
> +static int ext4_ext_try_to_merge(struct inode *inode,
> +				  struct ext4_ext_path *path,
> +				  struct ext4_extent *ex) {
> +	struct ext4_extent_header *eh;
> +	unsigned int depth;
> +	int merge_done = 0;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	depth = ext_depth(inode);
> +	BUG_ON(path[depth].p_hdr == NULL);
> +	eh = path[depth].p_hdr;
> +
> +	if (ex > EXT_FIRST_EXTENT(eh))
> +		merge_done = ext4_ext_try_to_merge_right(inode, path, ex - 1);
> +
> +	if (!merge_done)
> +		ret = ext4_ext_try_to_merge_right(inode, path, ex);
> +

Is there any reason not to merge right after merge left? The old code
does both, I think.

> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +/*
>   * check if a portion of the "newext" extent overlaps with an
>   * existing extent.
>   *
> @@ -3039,6 +3064,7 @@ fix_extent_len:
>  	ext4_ext_dirty(handle, inode, path + depth);
>  	return err;
>  }
> +
>  static int ext4_convert_unwritten_extents_endio(handle_t *handle,
>  					      struct inode *inode,
>  					      struct ext4_ext_path *path)
> @@ -3047,46 +3073,25 @@ static int ext4_convert_unwritten_extents_endio(handle_t *handle,
>  	struct ext4_extent_header *eh;
>  	int depth;
>  	int err = 0;
> -	int ret = 0;
> 
>  	depth = ext_depth(inode);
>  	eh = path[depth].p_hdr;
>  	ex = path[depth].p_ext;
> 
> +	ext_debug("ext4_convert_unwritten_extents_endio: inode %lu, logical"
> +		"block %llu, max_blocks %u\n", inode->i_ino,
> +		(unsigned long long)le32_to_cpu(ex->ee_block),
> +		ext4_ext_get_actual_len(ex));
> +
>  	err = ext4_ext_get_access(handle, inode, path + depth);
>  	if (err)
>  		goto out;
>  	/* first mark the extent as initialized */
>  	ext4_ext_mark_initialized(ex);
> 
> -	/*
> -	 * We have to see if it can be merged with the extent
> -	 * on the left.
> -	 */
> -	if (ex > EXT_FIRST_EXTENT(eh)) {
> -		/*
> -		 * To merge left, pass "ex - 1" to try_to_merge(),
> -		 * since it merges towards right _only_.
> -		 */
> -		ret = ext4_ext_try_to_merge(inode, path, ex - 1);
> -		if (ret) {
> -			err = ext4_ext_correct_indexes(handle, inode, path);
> -			if (err)
> -				goto out;
> -			depth = ext_depth(inode);
> -			ex--;
> -		}
> -	}
> -	/*
> -	 * Try to Merge towards right.
> -	 */
> -	ret = ext4_ext_try_to_merge(inode, path, ex);
> -	if (ret) {
> -		err = ext4_ext_correct_indexes(handle, inode, path);
> -		if (err)
> -			goto out;
> -		depth = ext_depth(inode);
> -	}
> +	/* correct indexes is nt needed becasue borders are not changed */
> +	ext4_ext_try_to_merge(inode, path, ex);
> +

Ah, so you discovered an issue -- currently ext4 can't merge across the
index block borders. that's a pity. This might need to fix up,
especially with split is going to be heavily used in punch hole,
snapshots, direct IO handling holes.


>  	/* Mark modified extent as dirty */
>  	err = ext4_ext_dirty(handle, inode, path + depth);
>  out:


--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists