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:	Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:29:05 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <>
To:	Allison Henderson <>
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <>
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
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists