linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] xfs: change available ranges in quota check

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20120127110238.GB31093@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:02:38 -0500
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	HAYASAKA Mitsuo <mitsuo.hayasaka.hu@...achi.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	xfs-masters@....sgi.com, Ben Myers <bpm@....com>,
	Alex Elder <aelder@....com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] xfs: change available ranges in quota check

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 03:21:02PM +0900, HAYASAKA Mitsuo wrote:
> > Can you send a testcase that reproduces issues with the old behaviour?
> > 
> 
> Regarding (1) related to inode reservation, current xfs works well
> because inode is reserved one by one if required.
> 
> For example, when an new inode tries to be reserved in xfs_trans_dqresv(),
> it checks quota as follows.

I'm just curious what the intent behdind the patches was.  They look
good to me, but I wonder why we need to change it at all.

> To make it more general, this check should be the same way as the new
> block quota check introduced in the PATCH 2/3 where the disk block can
> be used up to the block quota limits.

So I guess that's the part we'd want a test case for if possible.

--
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/