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, 26 May 2021 01:00:27 +0100
From:   David Howells <>
To:     Andreas Dilger <>
Cc:, Theodore Ts'o <>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <>, Chris Mason <>,
        Ext4 Developers List <>,
        xfs <>,
        linux-btrfs <>,,
        linux-fsdevel <>,
        NeilBrown <>
Subject: Re: How capacious and well-indexed are ext4, xfs and btrfs directories?

Andreas Dilger <> wrote:

> > Any thoughts on how that might scale?  vfs_tmpfile() doesn't appear to
> > require the directory inode lock.  I presume the directory is required for
> > security purposes in addition to being a way to specify the target
> > filesystem.
> I don't see how that would help much?

When it comes to dealing with a file I don't have cached, I can't probe the
cache file to find out whether it has data that I can read until I've opened
it (or found out it doesn't exist).  When it comes to writing to a new cache
file, I can't start writing until the file is created and opened - but this
will potentially hold up close, data sync and writes that conflict (and have
to implicitly sync).  If I can use vfs_tmpfile() to defer synchronous
directory accesses, that could be useful.

As mentioned, creating a link to a temporary cache file (ie. modifying the
directory) could be deferred to a background thread whilst allowing file I/O
to progress to the tmpfile.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists