linux-kernel - Re: [Bug 14354] Re: ext4 increased intolerance to unclean shutdown?

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: <3D6E88E0-7271-4CEC-85DC-9E4416F030F5@sun.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:56:27 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@...il.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 14354] Re: ext4 increased intolerance to unclean shutdown?

On 2009-10-29, at 15:38, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Parag Warudkar wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V
>> <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Can you try this patch ?
>>>
>>> commit a8836b1d6f92273e001012c7705ae8f4c3d5fb65
>>> Author: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Date:   Tue Oct 27 15:36:38 2009 +0530
>>>
>>>   ext4: discard preallocation during truncate
>>>
>>>   We need to make sure when we drop and reacquire the inode's
>>>   i_data_sem we discard the inode preallocation. Otherwise we
>>>   could have blocks marked as free in bitmap but still belonging
>>>   to prealloc space.
>> Just wanted to let you know that I have applied this patch and one
>> unclean shutdown later it seems to have not given me any trouble.
>> I will continue testing it - hopefully I won't have to reformat  this
>> time ( every time I tested previously I ended up having weird issues
>> that I decided to get rid of by reformatting /).
>
> I've been running my testcase, and I just hit the usual corruption  
> with this patch in place after 8 iterations, I'm afraid.


I wonder if there are multiple problems involved here?  Eric, it seems
possible that your reproducer is exercising a similar, though unrelated
codepath.  I would agree with Ted that if this patch is solving the
problem for some of the users it is definitely worth landing, even if it
ends up not solving all of the problems.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

--
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/