linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 08/49] e2fsck: don't rehash inline directories

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:	Wed, 12 Mar 2014 22:38:48 -0700
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/49] e2fsck: don't rehash inline directories

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:52:48PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:54:49PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > If a directory's contents are stored entirely inside the inode,
> > there's no index to rebuild and no dirblock checksum to recompute.
> > As far as I know these are the only two reasons to call dir rehash.
> 
> Well, actually, there is a third reason to rehash directories, and
> that is to reorganize a directory to optimize out deleted entries that
> are scattered in the middle of the directory.

Ooh, I forgot about that. :/

> That being said, it's more critical for inline directories, since we
> very much want to keep them from spilling over to an external block,
> this process of compressing out deleted space is something that should
> be done in real time as we operate on the directory, by the kernel,
> and not just at fsck time.
> 
> The only reason why we don't do this today is because if the directory
> is open for scanning using opendir/readdir, if we reorganize a
> directory block, it could end up corrupting the readdir --- and for
> non-inline directories, it's much less important.
> 
> What I think would might make sense is to have the kernel track
> whether the directory has been opened for reading, and if it hasn't,
> then it would be safe to try compressing all of the directory entries
> in the block so that the free space is in a single unused directory
> entry at the end of the block.  We could try doing this "dynamic
> compression" of directory free space both at unlink(2) time, and also
> when we try inserting a directory entry into the block and there is
> apparently no space in the directory block.
> 
> So I'm fine with skipping the rehashing of inline directories now, but
> this is a future, relatively small, kernel project we might want to
> think about for ext4.

Probably we ought to fix up rehash.c to be able to compress directory entries
too.  The only reason I kicked them here was that somehow an inline data dir
would end up on the rehash list, causing the block iteration to fail and e2fsck
stops cold.

--D
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 							- 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
--
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