linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 06/15] ext2fs: add new APIs needed for fast commits

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201210154821.GR52960@mit.edu>
Date:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:48:21 -0500
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     harshad shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
Cc:     Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/15] ext2fs: add new APIs needed for fast commits

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 05:45:27PM -0800, harshad shirwadkar wrote:
> I see that makes sense. In that case, I'll rename the function to
> errcode_t ext2fs_decode_extent(struct ext2fs_extent *dst, void *src).
> I wonder if it's okay if we make this function return an error in case
> the on-disk format is not sane. If we do that, we can add
> ext2fs_validate_extent() later. Does that make sense?

Sure, that works for me.

Something that you should think about at some point is how much impact
would be supporting an alternate on-disk extent node structure (for
the leaf and/or intermediate nodes) have on Fast Commit?  Obviously
doing this would a new an INCOMPAT feature at the file system level,
so we probably won't need any additional version negotiation in the
fast commit journal header itself, but how many tags would need to be
changed if we were to extend the extent tree structure sometime in the
future?

Cheers,

						- Ted