linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: use kmem_cache pool during inline xattr lookups

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: <08d03473-9871-ba10-4626-58c4479ef9d1@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Mar 2020 10:37:06 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     Ju Hyung Park <qkrwngud825@...il.com>
CC:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: use kmem_cache pool during inline xattr lookups

Hi Ju Hyung,

On 2020/3/18 20:14, Ju Hyung Park wrote:
> Hi Chao.
> 
> I got the time around to test this patch.
> The v2 patch seems to work just fine, and the code looks good.

Thanks a lot for the review and test.

> 
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:17 PM Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/xattr.c b/fs/f2fs/xattr.c
>> index a3360a97e624..e46a10eb0e42 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/xattr.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/xattr.c
>> @@ -23,6 +23,25 @@
>>  #include "xattr.h"
>>  #include "segment.h"
>>
>> +static void *xattr_alloc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int size, bool *is_inline)
>> +{
>> +       *is_inline = (size == sbi->inline_xattr_slab_size);
> 
> Would it be meaningless to change this to the following code?
> if (likely(size == sbi->inline_xattr_slab_size))
>     *is_inline = true;
> else
>     *is_inline = false;

Yup, I guess it's very rare that user will change inline xattr size via remount,
so I'm okay with this change.

Jaegeuk,

Could you please help to update the patch in your git tree directly?

Thanks,

> 
> The above statement seems to be only false during the initial mount
> and the rest(millions) seems to be always true.
> 
> Thanks.
> .
>