linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2] ext4:Teach ext4_ext_split to caculate extents efficiently.

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]

Date:	Wed, 25 May 2011 18:02:33 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4:Teach ext4_ext_split to caculate extents
 efficiently.

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:02:37AM +0800, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
> path[i]p_idx is mutated to EXT_MAX_INDEX(path[i].p_hdr) + 1, it is
> meaningless.  ext4_ext_split() is used only by
> ext4_ext_create_new_leaf() which drops the path after ext4_ext_split()
> returns, so the path[i].p_idx is no longer used.
> 
> I had tested the patch with fsx.  I am not sure if this test is
> enough.  If you want more tests, I can do it.

OK, thanks for the explanation.  Sometimes testing doesn't find
problems, so I try to understand the patch and make sure it is sane.
I noticed that your path[i].p_ext and path[i].p_idx were no longer
being updated with your patch; I was able to convince myself that
p_ext didn't matter, but I wasn't entirely sure about p_idx, so that's
why I asked you.

I've added it to the ext4 dev tree.

					- Ted
--
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