[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160705165715.GH15193@thunk.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 12:57:15 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Cc: Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] coredump: avoid ext4 auto_da_alloc for core file
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 11:01:40AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > Omar, this probably breaks the case where we do
> > > fallocate(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE), the i_size will be 0 but there will be
> > > blocks to truncate. Probably want to check i_blocks or something. Thanks,
> >
> > Sure, but this is in the coredump code; do we care there? What are
> > the odds that someone will have fallocated blocks beyond i_size in a
> > file named "core"? And if so, it's not like it's going to make the
> > coredump invalid or non-useful in any way.
>
> Wow I totally didn't notice this was in coredump.c, I thought it was in ext4
> code because you said it failed regression tests, which I assumed were your
> ext4 tests. Ignore me. Thanks,
Yeah, Omar's original patch was something he described as a "hack" to
the coredump code. I actually don't think it's that bad, but it does
make sense to have ext4 not enable the "replace-via-truncate" code
when the truncate is a no-op, but it turns out this is a bit tricky
because the places where we set i_size and where we decide to truncate
beyond i_size are separated. I tried to do something simple but it
didn't quite work right; I'll look into why it didn't work hopefully
later today.
- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists