linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 07/26] iomap: don't increase i

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:13:19 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, djwong@...nel.org,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
	tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, jack@...e.cz,
	ritesh.list@...il.com, willy@...radead.org, zokeefe@...gle.com,
	yi.zhang@...wei.com, chengzhihao1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com,
	wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 07/26] iomap: don't increase i_size if it's not a
 write operation

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 04:53:32PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
> So, we have to handle above case for xfs. I suppose we could keep
> increasing i_size if the zeroed folio is entirely outside of i_size,
> make sure we could write back and allocate blocks for the
> zeroed & delayed extent, something like below, any suggestions ?

Sorry for being dumb, but what was the problem solved by not updating
the size for ext4 again?  (for unshare I can't see any reason to
ever update the inode size)