linux-kernel - Re: jffs2: -ENOSPC when truncating file?!

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: <1203850653.13749.9.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date:	Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:57:32 +0800
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: jffs2: -ENOSPC when truncating file?!

On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 07:57 +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> Could a naïve implementation of this get exploited by doing a large
> number of truncates that just shave single bytes off various files?

Yeah, which is why _my_ naïve implementation would do it for
truncate-to-zero instead of just _any_ truncate (which could even be
truncate-to-larger).

A more complex version might allow _any_ transaction to eat into the
ALLOC_DELETION pool if it is ultimately going to reduce the amount of
space taken on the file system -- even overwriting 'real' data with
zeroes which compress better. That's going to be hard to calculate in
the general case though.

If allowing only truncate-to-zero isn't good enough, perhaps we could
allow truncation to use the ALLOC_DELETION pool when it's going to
obsolete at least one full data node. That's not so hard to check.

-- 
dwmw2

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/