linux-kernel - Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: check free

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: <33559c8d-fa39-219c-fff5-18e5586957e7@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2016 21:35:30 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: check free_sections for defragmentation

Hi Jaegeuk,

On 2016/9/2 4:46, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Fix wrong condition check for defragmentation of a file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/file.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> index 37c24be..a8aa6fd 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> @@ -2037,7 +2037,7 @@ static int f2fs_defragment_range(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>  	 * avoid defragment running in SSR mode when free section are allocated
>  	 * intensively
>  	 */
> -	if (has_not_enough_free_secs(sbi, sec_num)) {
> +	if (free_sections(sbi) <= sec_num) {

Why don't we check dirty dentry/node/imeta blocks here? they will be generated
at any time after f2fs_balance_fs. So, isn't original condition more strict than
new one?

Thanks,

>  		err = -EAGAIN;
>  		goto out;
>  	}
>