linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] mke2fs: Fix block bitmaps initalization with -O ^resize

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]

Message-ID: <20131205050410.GA10143@birch.djwong.org>
Date:	Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:04:10 -0800
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Akira Fujita <a-fujita@...jp.nec.com>,
	"'ext4 development'" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mke2fs: Fix block bitmaps initalization with -O
 ^resize_inode

[resend without accidentally dropping the cc's]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:03:40PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 05:22:10PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > 2) The IETF rule of "be conservative in what you send, and liberal in
> > > what you accept" applies.
> > 
> > I'm not convinced that we /need/ Akira's patch to clear BLOCK_UNINIT on any
> > group containing its own metadata, but I doubt it'd harm anything other than
> > make e2fsck slower.
> > 
> > It would certainly be the conservative-send route though.
> 
> The place where we are being conserviative what we send is that we
> clear BLOCK_UNINIT for block groups that don't have any data blocks,
> but which has metadata blocks belonging to *other* block groups,
> because there were some kernel implementations in the past that didn't
> handle this correctly.
> 
> But if you have a block group that has only its metadata, that's
> perfectly fine.  And that's easy to test; if you create a file system
> like this:
> 
>      touch /tmp/foo.img
>      mke2fs -t ext2 -O uninit_bg /tmp/foo.img 1800000
> 
> ... then by definition every single block group has its own metadata,
> and if there were problems with block groups that had its own metadata
> blocks, we wouldn't be able to set BLOCK_UNINIT on any block group at
> all.
> 
> It looks like we are currently clearing BLOCK_UNINIT for block groups
> that contain superblocks and backup superblocs.  To be honest, I don't
> remember why we are currently doing this.  I *think* the kernel and

Looking at the git history, that chunk of ext2fs_reserve_super_and_bgd() landed
there when you were trying to clean up libext2fs, though there's no obvious
reason why we need to unset BLOCK_UNINIT there too.  Oh well, it can't hurt.

> all modern e2fsprogs should be able to do the right thing, if we set
> BLOCK_UNINIT on all block groups.

Fortunately, they do, and have since the initial ext4dev code in 2006-7.

--D
> 
> 				- Ted
--
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