linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] ext4: correct the journal credits calculations of allocating blocks

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a5145aba-1412-488d-9d8d-05a108029327@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 21:04:55 +0800
From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
 jack@...e.cz, yi.zhang@...wei.com, libaokun1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com,
 yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] ext4: correct the journal credits calculations of
 allocating blocks

On 2025/5/19 23:48, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:48:28AM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>>
>> This patch conflicts with Jan's patch e18d4f11d240 ("ext4: fix
>> calculation of credits for extent tree modification") in
>> ext4_ext_index_trans_blocks(), the conflict should be resolved when
>> merging this patch. However, I checked the merged commit of this patch
>> in your dev branch[1], and the changes in ext4_ext_index_trans_blocks()
>> seem to be incorrect, which could result in insufficient credit
>> reservations on 1K block size filesystems.
> 
> Thanks so much for noticing the mis-merge!  I've fixed it in my tree,
> and will be pushing it out shortly.  If you could take a look and make
> sure that it's correct, that would be great.
> 

The merge in ext4_ext_index_trans_blocks() appears to be correct now.
However, the issue that Jan pointed out regarding the modification in
ext4_meta_trans_blocks() is correct, it will also lead to insufficient
credit reservations on some corner images. I will send out a fix ASAP.

Best Regards.
Yi.