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  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]
Date:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:11:03 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <>
To:     Gao Xiang <>
CC:     Eric Biggers <>, <>,
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v6] f2fs: compress: support compress level

On 2020/12/4 10:47, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:38:08AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2020/12/4 10:06, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:56:27AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> ...
>>> Keep lz4hc dirty data under writeback could block writeback, make kswapd
>>> busy, and direct memory reclaim path, I guess that's why rare online
>>> compression chooses it. My own premature suggestion is that it'd better
>>> to show the CR or performance benefits in advance, and prevent unprivileged
>>> users from using high-level lz4hc algorithm (to avoid potential system attack.)
>>> either from mount options or ioctl.
>> Yes, I guess you are worry about destop/server scenario, as for android scenario,
>> all compression related flow can be customized, and I don't think we will use
>> online lz4hc compress; for other scenario, except the numbers, I need to add the
>> risk of using lz4hc algorithm in document.
> Yes, I was saying the general scenario. My overall premature thought is that
> before releasing some brand new algorithm, it may be better to evaluate first
> it'd benefit to some scenarios first (either on CR or performance side, or
> why adding this?), or it would might cause lzo-rle likewise situation in the

Yeah, got your point.

> future (and add more dependency to algorithms, you might see BWT-based bzip2
> removal patch

Oops, is that really allowed? I don't this is a good idea...and I don't see there
are deletions from fs/ due to similar reason...


> (since I personally don't think BWT is a good algorithm as well)... Just FYI
> ... If i'm wrong, kindly ignore me :)
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
>> Thanks,
> .

Powered by blists - more mailing lists