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: <87ppxd4ddm.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date:	Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:31:33 +0900
From:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
	Amit Sahrawat <a.sahrawat@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v5] fat: editions to support fat_fallocate

Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> writes:

I couldn't review fully though.

> +	if (mmu_private_ideal < MSDOS_I(inode)->mmu_private &&
> +	    filp->f_dentry->d_count == 1)
> +		fat_truncate_blocks(inode, inode->i_size);

Hm, why d_count == 1 check is needed? Feel strange and racy.

> +		/* Start the allocation.We are not zeroing out the clusters */
> +		while (nr_cluster-- > 0) {
> +			err = fat_alloc_clusters(inode, &cluster, 1);

Why doesn't allocate clusters at once by fat_alloc_clusters()?

> +	size = i_size_read(inode);
> +	mmu_private_actual = MSDOS_I(inode)->mmu_private;
> +	mmu_private_ideal = round_up(size, sb->s_blocksize);
> +	if ((mmu_private_actual > mmu_private_ideal) && (pos > size)) {
> +		err = fat_zero_falloc_area(file, mapping, pos);
> +		if (err) {
> +			fat_msg(sb, KERN_ERR,
> +				"Error (%d) zeroing fallocated area", err);
> +			return err;
> +		}
> +	}

This way probably inefficient. This would write data twice times (one is
zeroed, one is actual data). So, cpu time would be twice higher if
user uses fallocated, right?

Difference of fallocated area would be whether get_block() set
buffer_new() or not? If true, we should change get_block(), not
write_begin()?

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ