| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <F28E8BBB-A8B7-44AA-A84C-DB247B2A88CC@dilger.ca> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:29:05 -0600 From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> To: Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Ext4 Punch Hole Support: Change summary and test case summary On 2011-04-19, at 1:37 AM, Allison Henderson wrote: > .Big Hole Test > --------------------------------------------------------------- > A hole large hole is punched in a large file (exact file size=638169088 bytes, exact hole size = 638150422 bytes, offset = 6144 bytes), > resulting in all but 5 blocks being punched out (2 in the front, 3 in the back). This test case verifies that the code can properly > punch out a hole covering multiple extents. > > This test is successful when the following conditions are met: > - File frag shows extents only for the first two blocks and the last 3 blocks > - The test file contains zeros from bytes 6144 to 638156566 > (* ls and df is not measured here because some blocks will still be reserved > as index blocks causing the consumed space to be appear larger) Shouldn't the remaining two extents fit inside the inode, so there is no need for index blocks, or does the extent removal code not shrink the index blocks? Cheers, Andreas -- 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