linux-ext4 - Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 update for 3.0

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:	Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:51:40 +0400
From:	Maxim Patlasov <maxim.patlasov@...il.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 update for 3.0

Hi Ted,

> Yongqiang Yang (1):
>      ext4: correct comments for ext4_free_blocks()

Any ideas why the patch fixing accounting of i_blocks in
ext4_free_blocks() didn't come to this set of changes?

The problem was that ext4_free_blocks() calls dquot_free_block() that,
in turn, calls inode_sub_bytes() decrementing i_blocks. This works
fine in most cases but the one: ext4_ext_map_blocks() might call
ext4_free_blocks (if ext4_ext_insert_extent failed) when allocated
blocks were only reserved, i.e. not accounted in i_blocks yet.

I recently re-run a simple test reproducing the problem and found out
that Linus' 3.0.0-rc6 is still affected by this problem. Does it make
sense to resend that patch to you?

Thanks,
Maxim
--
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