linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix overhead calculation in bigalloc filesystem (Re: ... )

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:52:58 +0100 (CET)
From:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
cc:	Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix overhead calculation in bigalloc filesystem
 (Re: ... )

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Lukáš Czerner wrote:

> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:50:03 +0100 (CET)
> From: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> Cc: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
>     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix overhead calculation in bigalloc filesystem
>     (Re: ... )
> 
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> 
> ..snip...
> 
> > 
> > Hi Zheng,
> > 
> > thanks for the review. I know about the other issues and I'm trying
> > to resolve those as well. Right now I have a patch which includes
> > the changes ext4_calculate_overhead() you've described below and more,
> > but even with this I still see some problems remaining.
> > 
> > Hopefully will send another patch soon.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > -Lukas
> > 
> > > 
> > > Subject: [PATCH] ext4: fix overhead calculation in bigalloc filesystem
> > > 
> > > From: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>
> > > 
> > > ext4_calculate_overhead() should compute the overhead and stash it in
> > > sbi->s_overhead.  But we miss use EXT4_B2C() to calculate the number of
> > > clusters before first_data_block and the number of journal blocks.  This
> > > commit use EXT4_NUM_B2C() instead of EXT4_B2C() to calculate the
> > > overhead.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>
> > > Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/ext4/super.c | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > index 3d4fb81..6165558 100644
> > > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > @@ -3219,7 +3219,7 @@ int ext4_calculate_overhead(struct super_block *sb)
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * All of the blocks before first_data_block are overhead
> > >  	 */
> > > -	overhead = EXT4_B2C(sbi, le32_to_cpu(es->s_first_data_block));
> > > +	overhead = EXT4_NUM_B2C(sbi, le32_to_cpu(es->s_first_data_block));
> 
> ...except this. I do not think this is right because we do not skip
> the first cluster right ? We're still using it, but we can never use
> the block before es->s_first_data_block. Please correct me if I am
> wrong.

moreover we do not allow bigalloc file system with block size < 4k.

> 
> 
> > >  
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * Add the overhead found in each block group
> > > @@ -3235,7 +3235,7 @@ int ext4_calculate_overhead(struct super_block *sb)
> > >  	}
> > >  	/* Add the journal blocks as well */
> > >  	if (sbi->s_journal)
> > > -		overhead += EXT4_B2C(sbi, sbi->s_journal->j_maxlen);
> > > +		overhead += EXT4_NUM_B2C(sbi, sbi->s_journal->j_maxlen);
> 
> This I already have in my patch I'm testing right now. And as I said
> there are other places where we misuse EXT4_B2C().
> 
> -Lukas
> 
> > >  
> > >  	sbi->s_overhead = overhead;
> > >  	smp_wmb();
> > > 
> > 
>