On 2017/3/8 9:53, Kinglong Mee wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 09:11, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 03/04, Kinglong Mee wrote:
>>> When the zone type is BLK_ZONE_TYPE_CONVENTIONAL, the blkstart is
>>> calculated twice.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kinglong Mee
>>> ---
>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 22 +---
On 2017/3/8 10:47, Sheng Yong wrote:
> This patch checks the parameter range passed by ioctl to void that range
> exceeds the max_file_blocks limit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sheng Yong
Reviewed-by: Chao Yu
--
Announcing the
On 2017/3/8 10:47, Sheng Yong wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Sheng Yong
Reviewed-by: Chao Yu
--
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Si
Hi Jaegeuk,
On 2017/3/8 10:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Let's allocate a bio when issuing discard commands later.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim
> ---
> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h| 4 +-
> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 113
> --
> 2 files changed, 62 insertions(
> -Original Message-
> From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaeg...@kernel.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 5:56 AM
> To: Fan Li
> Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: adjust the way of calculating nat block
>
> On 03/08, Fan Li wrote:
> > use a sl
On 2017/3/8 21:35, Kinglong Mee wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 20:08, Chao Yu wrote:
>> In commit d9cdc9033181 ("ext4 crypto: enforce context consistency") we
>> declared that:
>>
>> 2) All files or directories in a directory must be protected using the
>> same key as their containing directory.
>>
>> Bu
On 2017/3/8 21:16, Kinglong Mee wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 20:14, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/3/6 16:11, Kinglong Mee wrote:
>>> A cross rename between two encrypted files, the disk level filenames
>>> aren't updated for the file_enc_name(to) checking.
>>>
>>> Also, cross rename between encrypted file and
On 03/08, Fan Li wrote:
> use a slightly simpler expression to calculate nat block with nid.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fan Li
> ---
> fs/f2fs/node.h | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.h b/fs/f2fs/node.h
> index 2f9603f..f9fb5b8 100644
> --- a/fs/f2
Hi,
On 03/08, Philippe De Muyter wrote:
> Hi f2fs developpers,
>
> Please excuse my maybe dumb question.
>
> I recently encountered a kernel panic at root mount time (thus making my
> system unusable, as my root partition is formatted as f2fs) due to the
> following segment in fs/f2fs/segment.c:
On 03/08, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 06:33:33PM -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Let's allocate a bio when issuing discard commands later.
>
> Does this solve the issue with your queue stalls?
No, the patch just changes bio_alloc timings, but the stall happens when doing
subm
On 03/08, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > This patch fixes that SSR can overwrite previous warm node block consisting
> > of
> > a node chain since the last checkpoint.
>
> Good catch!
>
> Need to consider the impact to other accesser, e.g. is_checkpointed_data,
> add_d
On 03/08, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
> > during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.
>
> Hmm...should not allow other using of inode->i_ino in following codes of
> f2fs_evict_inode,
On 03/08, heyunlei wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> On 2017/3/8 10:49, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 03/07, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > Hi Yunlei,
> > >
> > > On 03/02, Yunlei He wrote:
> > > > This patch add a function to punch discard command if one segment
> > > > reuse before discard. Split this segment fro
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 06:33:33PM -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Let's allocate a bio when issuing discard commands later.
Does this solve the issue with your queue stalls?
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim
> ---
> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h| 4 +-
> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 113
> +++
Hi f2fs developpers,
Please excuse my maybe dumb question.
I recently encountered a kernel panic at root mount time (thus making my
system unusable, as my root partition is formatted as f2fs) due to the
following segment in fs/f2fs/segment.c:init_dirty_segmap
if (valid_blocks > s
Hi chao,
ok...got it. I'm reading f2fs_GC flow now and have a little confusion with the
purpose of some variables.
Sorry, Thanks...
-邮件原件-
发件人: Yuchao (T)
发送时间: 2017年3月8日 20:37
收件人: gaoxiang (P); jaeg...@kernel.org
抄送: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Duwei (Device OS); Zhouxiyu
On 3/8/2017 20:08, Chao Yu wrote:
> In commit d9cdc9033181 ("ext4 crypto: enforce context consistency") we
> declared that:
>
> 2) All files or directories in a directory must be protected using the
> same key as their containing directory.
>
> But in f2fs_cross_rename there is a vulnerabilit
On 3/8/2017 20:14, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/3/6 16:11, Kinglong Mee wrote:
>> A cross rename between two encrypted files, the disk level filenames
>> aren't updated for the file_enc_name(to) checking.
>>
>> Also, cross rename between encrypted file and non-encrypted file under
>> a non-encrypted fi
On 2017/3/7 19:06, gaoxiang (P) wrote:
> It seems that cur_victim_sec is useless and hard for us to understand its
> meaning now.
> This patch removes cur_victim_sec variable / sec_usage_check() and
> renames confusing victim_secmap to bg_victim_secmap.
IIRC, cur_victim_sec is used for avoiding t
On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> This patch fixes that SSR can overwrite previous warm node block consisting of
> a node chain since the last checkpoint.
Good catch!
Need to consider the impact to other accesser, e.g. is_checkpointed_data,
add_discard_addrs?
Thanks,
>
> Fixes: 5b6c6be2d8
On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
> during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.
Hmm...should not allow other using of inode->i_ino in following codes of
f2fs_evict_inode, right?
Thanks,
>
> Signed-off-by:
This patch fix a resize faill for sector size mismatch.
The initial fs comes from an image file, with sector size
512KB, and the block device sector size is equal to block
size.
Signed-off-by: Yunlei He
---
fsck/main.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fsck
On 2017/3/6 16:11, Kinglong Mee wrote:
> A cross rename between two encrypted files, the disk level filenames
> aren't updated for the file_enc_name(to) checking.
>
> Also, cross rename between encrypted file and non-encrypted file under
> a non-encrypted file, the enc name flags should update at
In commit d9cdc9033181 ("ext4 crypto: enforce context consistency") we
declared that:
2) All files or directories in a directory must be protected using the
same key as their containing directory.
But in f2fs_cross_rename there is a vulnerability that allow to cross
rename unencrypted file in
Both nat_bits cache and free_nid_bitmap cache provide same functionality
as a intermediate cache between free nid cache and disk, but with
different granularity of indicating free nid range, and different
persistence policy. nat_bits cache provides better persistence ability,
and free_nid_bitmap pr
Hi Jaegeuk,
On 2017/3/8 6:27, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Chao,
>
> There were two reasons for slow down; one is set_bit_le and the other was
> spin_lock calls.
>
> I think it would'b good to merge this patch in yours as well.
> Let me know. I'm ready to integrate together and test them.
The chang
On 3/8/2017 03:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Kinglong,
>
> Can we make a testcase in xfstests to check this clearly?
> 1. creat A under encrypted dir
> 2. rename A to B
> 3. fsync B
> 4. power-cut
>
> Is this your concern?
Yes, it is.
If B isn't exist, rename A to B means create a new A (unlink th
27 matches
Mail list logo
