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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20131204055051.GA25689@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:50:52 +0800 From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com> To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>, Tao Ma <tm@....ma> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/28] mke2fs: add inline_data support in mke2fs [Cc Tao to get some comments] On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:26:08PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:21:50PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 08:08:19PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:27:57AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 02:30:26PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > + * notify users that inline data will never be useful. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > + if ((fs_param.s_feature_incompat & > > > > > > + EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_INLINE_DATA) && > > > > > > + inode_size == EXT2_GOOD_OLD_INODE_SIZE) { > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why is it impossible to use i_blocks > > > > > for inline data even if there's no space for EAs? > > > > > > > > If I understand correctly, on kernel side, we determine an inode has > > > > inline data according to whether we have 'system.data' xattr entry on > > > > inode extended attribute space. If an inode doesn't have enough space > > > > to store an entry with 'system.data', we just think this inode doesn't > > > > has inline data. So that is why I add this sanity check. > > > > > > Ok. I was curious. Small inode => no inline data seems like an unfortunate > > > restriction to me, but oh well, it's your feature. I don't plan to go back to > > > 128 byte inodes ever. :) > > > > > > Also, we could store four more bytes if we created a new e_name_index value (5? > > > 9?) to represent "system.data". Any thoughts about that? > > > > Sorry, I don't get your point. Do you want to create a new e_name_index? > > Any reason lets you want to do this? > > Yep, that's exactly what I propose to do, so we can cram four more bytes into > the inline data. Agree. I believe it is fine. But I am wondering if it will break the file system that inline data has been enabled. - Zheng -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists