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  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, 15 Jan 2020 14:20:19 +0000
From:   David Howells <>
To:     Andreas Dilger <>
Cc:, Qu Wenruo <>,
        linux-fsdevel <>,
        Al Viro <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <>,
        Chris Mason <>, Josef Bacik <>,
        David Sterba <>,
        linux-ext4 <>,
        linux-xfs <>,
        linux-btrfs <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: Problems with determining data presence by examining extents?

Andreas Dilger <> wrote:

> > Would you like to explain why you want to know such fs internal info?
> I believe David wants it to store sparse files as an cache and use FIEMAP to
> determine if the blocks are cached locally, or if they need to be fetched from
> the server.  If the filesystem doesn't store the written blocks accurately,
> there is no way for the local cache to know whether it is holding valid data
> or not.

More or less.  I have no particular attachment to bmap or FIEMAP as the
interface to use.  I'm just interested in finding out quickly if the data I
want is present.

If call_read_iter() will return a short read on hitting a hole, I can manage
if I can find out if just the first byte is present.

Finding out if the block is present allows me to avoid shaping read requests
from VM readahead into 256k blocks - which may require the allocation of extra
pages for bufferage.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists