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: <20170619081002.GC11837@quack2.suse.cz> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:10:02 +0200 From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> To: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...nel.org>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...sity.com>, Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>, Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>, Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/31] ext4: eliminate xattr entry e_hash recalculation for removes On Fri 16-06-17 19:04:44, Tahsin Erdogan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote: > > I agree with moving ext4_xattr_rehash_entry() out of ext4_xattr_rehash(). > > However how about just keeping ext4_xattr_rehash() in > > ext4_xattr_block_set() (so that you don't have to pass aditional argument > > to ext4_xattr_set_entry()) and calling ext4_xattr_rehash_entry() when > > i->value != NULL? That would seem easier and cleaner as well... > > The is_block parameter is also used to decide whether block reserve > check should be performed: > > @@ -1500,8 +1502,8 @@ static int ext4_xattr_set_entry(struct ext4_xattr_info *i, > * attribute block so that a long value does not occupy the > * whole space and prevent futher entries being added. > */ > - if (ext4_has_feature_ea_inode(inode->i_sb) && new_size && > - (s->end - s->base) == i_blocksize(inode) && > + if (ext4_has_feature_ea_inode(inode->i_sb) && > + new_size && is_block && > (min_offs + old_size - new_size) < > EXT4_XATTR_BLOCK_RESERVE(inode)) { > ret = -ENOSPC; > > Because of that, I think moving ext4_xattr_rehash to caller makes it > bit more complicated. Let me know if you disagree. What I dislike is the leakage of information about particular type of storage into ext4_xattr_set_entry(). However I agree that it would be cumbersome to handle this reservation check differently so ok. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@...e.com> SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists