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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:42:52 +0800
From:	Zheng Liu <>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <>
	Yongqiang Yang <>,
	Allison Henderson <>,
	Zheng Liu <>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/8 v2] ext4: initialize extent status tree

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 03:05:41PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:05:40PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > index 3e0851e..353b1fd 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > @@ -944,6 +944,7 @@ static struct inode *ext4_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> >  	memset(&ei->i_cached_extent, 0, sizeof(struct ext4_ext_cache));
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ei->i_prealloc_list);
> >  	spin_lock_init(&ei->i_prealloc_lock);
> > +	ext4_es_init_tree(&ei->i_es_tree);
> >  	ei->i_reserved_data_blocks = 0;
> >  	ei->i_reserved_meta_blocks = 0;
> >  	ei->i_allocated_meta_blocks = 0;
> This patch hunk immediately me ask, "so when does the extent_status
> tree get freed?"  And I believe the answer is that currently, since it
> only tracks delayed extents (and we're not using it for locking
> purposes), by the time we have evicted the inode and are ready to call
> ext4_clear_inode(), we should have released all of the nodes in the
> ext4_es_tree.   Is that correct?
> If so, we might want to think about adding a sanity check to make sure
> that by the time we are done with the inode in ext4_evict_inode()
> (after we have forced writeback), the ext4_es_tree is empty.  Agreed?

Hi Ted,

Today I revise this patch again, and I find extent_status_tree is freed
in ext4_clear_inode().  So maybe I don't think that we need to check
this tree to be freed in ext4_evict_inode().  This change is in this
patch '[RFC][PATCH 4/8 v2] ext4: let ext4 maintain extent status tree'.
What's your opinion?

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