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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:09:22 +0000 From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> To: "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, naoya.horiguchi@....com, tytso@....edu Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ext4: Convert move_extent_per_page() to use folios On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 06:10:08PM -0800, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote: > { > struct inode *orig_inode = file_inode(o_filp); > struct page *pagep[2] = {NULL, NULL}; > + struct folio *folio[2] = {NULL, NULL}; I have a feeling that mext_page_double_lock() should also be converted to use folios. But this makes me nervous: int blocks_per_page = PAGE_SIZE >> orig_inode->i_blkbits; and I'm not sure what will happen if one or both of the orig_page and donor_page is large -- possibly different sizes of large. Obviously ext4 doesn't allow large folios today, but it would be good to get some reasoning about why this isn't laying a trap for later (or at least assertions that neither folio is large so that there's an obvious scream instead of silent data corruption).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists