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  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, 12 Jan 2012 09:23:18 -0700
From:	Allison Henderson <>
To:	Dave Chinner <>
CC:	Hugh Dickins <>,
Subject: Re: punch-hole should go beyond i_size

On 01/11/2012 07:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 05:02:12PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> Hi Allison,
>> In thinking about fallocate() on tmpfs, I cross-check with ext4
>> and find this bug in its implementation of FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE:
>> rm -f temp
>> fallocate    -l 4096 temp
>> du temp				# shows 4, right
>> fallocate -p -l 4096 temp
>> du temp				# shows 0, right
>> rm -f temp
>> fallocate -n -l 4096 temp
>> du temp				# shows 4, right
>> fallocate -p -l 4096 temp
>> du temp				# shows 4, wrong
>> rm temp
>> ext4_ext_punch_hole() contains /* No need to punch hole beyond i_size */
>> early return, and trimming to i_size below, but forgets that the other
>> variety of fallocate(), with FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE set, may have allocated
>> blocks beyond i_size.  They can be removed with ftruncate(), but it is
>> unexpected for fallocate() not to undo its own work, and xfs does so.
> I'm pretty sure that's a bug as XFS allows punching holes in extents
> beyond EOF.
> Cheers,
> Dave.

Oh I see, I'll take a look at it, I think it will be ok to just take out 
the early return.  Thx!


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