| 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: <53C5FCA5.20207@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:16:37 +0800
From: Xiaoguang Wang <wangxg.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To: <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, <a-fujita@...jp.nec.com>,
<t-sato@...jp.nec.com>, <sandeen@...hat.com>
Subject: Question about e2fsprogs/e4defrag
Hi,
When I run xfstests/tests/generic/018 for ext4 file system in RHEL7.0GA, sometimes it fails and
sometime it succeeds. After looking into this case, I think it's not a kernel ext4 bug, it maybe
an e4dfrag bug. I compiled the newest e2fsprogs to have test, it seems this issue still exits, so
I still send a mail to this list to look for some help, thanks.
The issue is that sometimes e4defrag does not defrag file correctly.
Steps to reproduce this issue:
1. cd mntpoint
2. rm -f lege
3. for I in `seq 9 -1 0`;
do dd if=/dev/zero of=lege bs=4k count=1 conv=notrunc seek=$I oflag=sync &>/dev/null;
done;
4. e4defrag -c -v lege
Repeatedly execute the 2, 3, 4 steps until you get a file which have the similar extent layout like below:
################################################################
[root@...alhost test_e2fsprogs]# e4defrag -c -v lege
<File>
[ext 1]: start 49365571: logical 0: len 1
[ext 2]: start 49365570: logical 1: len 1
[ext 3]: start 49365569: logical 2: len 1
[ext 4]: start 49365568: logical 3: len 1
[ext 5]: start 49365567: logical 4: len 1
[ext 6]: start 49365566: logical 5: len 1
[ext 7]: start 49365565: logical 6: len 1
[ext 8]: start 49365564: logical 7: len 1
[ext 9]: start 49365563: logical 8: len 1
[ext 10]: start 49365562: logical 9: len 1
Total/best extents 10/1
Average size per extent 4 KB
Fragmentation score 98
[0-30 no problem: 31-55 a little bit fragmented: 56- needs defrag]
This file (lege) needs defragmentation.
Done.
################################################################
The physical blocks are continuous but reversed.
If we call e4defrag against this file, the output would be:
################################################################
[root@...alhost test_e2fsprogs]# /tmp/e4defrag -v lege
ext4 defragmentation for lege
[1/1]lege: 100% extents: 10 -> 10 [ OK ]
Success: [1/1]
[root@...alhost test_e2fsprogs]# /tmp/e4defrag -v -c lege
<File>
[ext 1]: start 49365571: logical 0: len 1
[ext 2]: start 49365570: logical 1: len 1
[ext 3]: start 49365569: logical 2: len 1
[ext 4]: start 49365568: logical 3: len 1
[ext 5]: start 49365567: logical 4: len 1
[ext 6]: start 49365566: logical 5: len 1
[ext 7]: start 49365565: logical 6: len 1
[ext 8]: start 49365564: logical 7: len 1
[ext 9]: start 49365563: logical 8: len 1
[ext 10]: start 49365562: logical 9: len 1
Total/best extents 10/1
Average size per extent 4 KB
Fragmentation score 98
[0-30 no problem: 31-55 a little bit fragmented: 56- needs defrag]
This file (lege) needs defragmentation.
Done.
################################################################
According to my understanding, this file is not defraged correctly and should be convert into one extent.
Or because if the physical blocks are continuous though reversed, we do not need to do defragment?
I have checked the e4defrag source code, whether to do real defragment depends on some conditions, please
see this code(e4defrag.c).
--main
--file_defrag
In file_defrag(), there is such a judgement：
"if (file_frags_start <= best || orig_physical_cnt <= donor_physical_cnt)", If this returns true, the e4defrag will
not call call_defrag() to do real defragment work.
Here file_frags_start: number of file fragments before defrag
orig_physical_cnt: number of original file's continuous physical region
donor_physical_cnt: number of donor file's continuous physical region
In this "lege" file, the orig_physical_cnt is 1, and donor_physical_cnt is also 1, so the "if" is satisfied and
call_defrag() won't be called.
Here I'd like to know the comparison "orig_physical_cnt <= donor_physical_cnt" is useful? According to
my understanding, what should we have comparison are number of extents or average extent size.
When I have this change:
diff --git a/misc/e4defrag.c b/misc/e4defrag.c
index a204793..cd95698 100644
--- a/misc/e4defrag.c
+++ b/misc/e4defrag.c
@@ -1598,8 +1598,7 @@ check_improvement:
extents_before_defrag += file_frags_start;
}
- if (file_frags_start <= best ||
- orig_physical_cnt <= donor_physical_cnt) {
+ if (file_frags_start <= best) {
printf("\033[79;0H\033[K[%u/%u]%s:\t%3d%%",
defraged_file_count, total_count, file, 100);
if (mode_flag & DETAIL)
Then the "lege" file could be defraged correctly.
##################################################################
[root@...alhost test_e2fsprogs]# /tmp/e4defrag -v lege
ext4 defragmentation for lege
[1/1]lege: 100% extents: 10 -> 1 [ OK ]
Success: [1/1]
[root@...alhost test_e2fsprogs]# /tmp/e4defrag -v -c lege
<File>
[ext 1]: start 49366583: logical 0: len 10
Total/best extents 1/1
Average size per extent 40 KB
Fragmentation score 0
[0-30 no problem: 31-55 a little bit fragmented: 56- needs defrag]
This file (lege) does not need defragmentation.
Done.
##################################################################
Any opinion or suggestions will be appreciated!
If I'm wrong, please correct me, thanks!
Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang
--
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