linux-ext4 - Re: Design alternatives for fragments/file tail support in ext4

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 02 Dec 2006 14:02:53 +0300
From:	Alex Tomas <alex@...sterfs.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Design alternatives for fragments/file tail support in ext4


>>>>> Theodore Ts'o (TT) writes:

 TT> Storing the tail as an extended attribute
 TT> =========================================
 TT> BSD FFS/UFS Fragments
 TT> =====================

what if we would apply BSD FFS/UFS Fragments design to inodes?
something like basic inode size is still 128 bytes, but we
could unite few contiguous inodes to a larger one and use that
space to store extented attributes, including a tail ?

I foresee couple issues:

a) as we can't predict tail size, we'd need to be able
   to reallocate inode or do some sort of delayed inode
   allocation

b) inode space is quite limited and this why we may exhaust
   it very quickly

thanks, Alex

  
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html