linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v5] fat: editions to support fat

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: <87r4hp3kax.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date:	Thu, 02 May 2013 16:36:22 +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:

>> Then, per-file discard fallocate space sounds like wrong. fallocate
>> space probably is inode attribute.
> Since, our preallocation will not be persistent after umount. So, we
> need to free up the space at some point.
> If we consider for normal pre-allocation in ext4, in that case also
> the blocks are removed in ext4_release_file when the last writer
> closes the file.
>
> ext4_release_file()
> {
> ...
> /* if we are the last writer on the inode, drop the block reservation */
> 	if ((filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) &&
> 			(atomic_read(&inode->i_writecount) == 1) &&
> 		        !EXT4_I(inode)->i_reserved_data_blocks)
> 	{
> 		down_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_data_sem);
> 		ext4_discard_preallocations(inode);
> 		up_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_data_sem);
> 	}
>
> So, we will need to have this per file . May be the condition for
> checking is wrong which can be correct but the correctness points
> should be same. We can give a thought on using "i_writecount" for
> controlling the parallel write in FAT also.
> how do you think ?

AFAIK, preallocation != fallocate. ext*'s preallocation was there at
before fallocation to optimize block allocation for user data blocks.

>>>> I know. Question is, why do we need to initialize twice.
>>>>
>>>> 1) zeroed for uninitialized area, 2) then copy user data area. We need
>>>> only either, right? This seems to be doing both for all fallocated area.
>>> We did not initialize twice. We are using the ‘pos’ as the attribute
>>> to define zeroing length in case of pre-allocation.
>>> Zeroing out occurs till the ‘pos’ while actual write occur after ‘pos’.
>>> If we file size is 100KB and we pre-allocated till 1MB. Next if we try
>>> to write at 500KB,
>>> Then zeroing out will occur only for 100KB->500KB, after that there
>>> will be normal write. There is no duplication for the same space.
>>
>> Ah. Then write_begin() really initialize after i_size until page cache
>> boudary for append write? I wonder if this patch works correctly for
>> mmap.
> Since you already provided me review comments to check truncate and
> mmap, we checked all points for those cases.

cluster size == 512b

1) create new file
2) fallocate 100MB
3) write(2) data for each 512b

With this, write_begin() will be called for each 512b data. When we
allocates new page for this file, write_begin() writes data 0-512. Then,
we have to initialize 512-4096 by zero. Because mmap read maps 0-4096,
even if i_size == 512.

Who is initializing area for 512-4096?

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/