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:   Mon, 23 May 2022 23:08:06 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <>
Cc:     Baokun Li <>,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: correct the judgment of BUG in

On Tue 24-05-22 01:38:44, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> On 22/05/21 09:42PM, Baokun Li wrote:
> > When either of the "start + size <= ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical" or
> > "start > ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical" conditions is met, it indicates
> > that the fe_logical is not in the allocated range.
> Sounds about right to me based on the logic in ext4_mb_use_inode_pa().
> We try to allocate/preallocate such that ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical should fall
> within the preallocated range. So if our start or start + size doesn't include
> fe_logical then it is a bug in the ext4_mb_normalize_request() logic.

I agree ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical is a goal block. But AFAIK it never was a
hard guarantee that we would allocate extent that includes that block. It
was always treated as a hint only. In particular if you look at the logic
in ext4_mb_normalize_request() it does shift the start of the allocation to
avoid preallocated ranges etc. so I don't see how we are guaranteed that
ext4_mb_normalize_request() will result in an allocation request that
includes ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical.


Jan Kara <>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists