mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@us.ibm.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@oracle.com>,
	Martin K Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>,
	Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Coly Li <colyli@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/28] ext4: Calculate and verify checksums for htree nodes
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:21:58 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111013072158.GR12447@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F6453844-06CC-4245-BB39-EBA4327D4C92@dilger.ca>

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:27:29PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2011-10-08, at 1:55 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Calculate and verify the checksum for directory index tree (htree) node blocks.  The checksum is stored in the last 4 bytes of the htree block and requires the dx_entry array to stop 1 dx_entry short of the end of the block.
> > 
> > +/*
> > + * This goes at the end of each htree block.  If you want to use the
> > + * reserved field, you'll have to update the checksum code to include it.
> > + */
> > +struct dx_tail {
> > +	u32 reserved;
> > +	u32 checksum;	/* crc32c(uuid+inum+dirblock) */
> > +};
> 
> Why exclude the reserved field from the checksum?  That would mean that
> the checksum value will depend on whether the other feature is in use
> or not, which will make everything more complicated in the future.
> 
> Better to always set it to zero for now, and if it is used in the future
> then it can be set to whatever value is needed and the checksum code
> will remain the same in both the kernel and e2fsprogs.

As a minor speed optimization, the htree checksum only covers the fake dirent
structures, the htree block header, and header.count dx_entry structs, which
means that in the common case it won't come anywhere close to checksumming all
4096 bytes.  But you do make a compelling case to cover that reserved field
even if it's zero now.

> > +/* checksumming functions */
> > +static struct dx_countlimit *get_dx_countlimit(struct inode *inode,
> > +					       struct ext4_dir_entry *dirent,
> > +					       int *offset)
> > +{
> > +	if (le16_to_cpu(dirent->rec_len) == EXT4_BLOCK_SIZE(inode->i_sb))
> > +		count_offset = 8;
> > +	else if (le16_to_cpu(dirent->rec_len) == 12) {
> > +		dp = (struct ext4_dir_entry *)(((void *)dirent) + 12);
> > +		if (le16_to_cpu(dp->rec_len) !=
> > +		    EXT4_BLOCK_SIZE(inode->i_sb) - 12)
> > +			return NULL;
> > +		root = (struct dx_root_info *)(((void *)dp + 12));
> > +		if (root->reserved_zero ||
> > +		    root->info_length != sizeof(struct dx_root_info))
> > +			return NULL;
> > +		count_offset = 32;
> > +	} else
> > +		return NULL;
> 
> (style) if one branch of an if-else has braces, they all should

Ok.

> > +static void ext4_dx_csum_set(struct inode *inode, struct ext4_dir_entry *dirent)
> > +{
> > +	struct dx_countlimit *c;
> > +	struct dx_tail *t;
> > +	int count_offset, limit, count;
> > +
> > +	if (!EXT4_HAS_RO_COMPAT_FEATURE(inode->i_sb,
> > +					EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_METADATA_CSUM))
> 
> It would be nice to add some macros to clean up the feature flag checks
> (in a separate patch, but this long line reminded me of it):
> 
> #define EXT4_ROCOMPAT(sb, feature) \
> 	EXT4_HAS_RO_COMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_ ## feature)
> 
> Then the code can be changed to use:
> 
> 	if (!EXT4_ROCOMPAT(inode->i_sb, METADATA_CSUM))
> 
> which is not only shorter and has a chance of fitting on one line, but
> also avoids the occasional hard-to-find bug that uses a mismatched mask
> and flag word, like:
> 
> 	if (!EXT4_HAS_RO_COMPAT_FEATURE(inode->i_sb,
> 					EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_FLEX_BG)
> 
> With the helper macros, this would fail at compile time, because
> EXT4_FEATURE_ROCOMPAT_FLEX_BG does not exist.

Yes, that would make a nice (separate) cleanup patch.

--D

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-10-13  7:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-10-08  7:53 [PATCH v2 00/28] ext4: Add metadata checksumming Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:53 ` [PATCH 01/28] ext4: ext4_dx_add_entry should dirty directory metadata with the directory inode Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:53 ` [PATCH 02/28] ext4: ext4_rename should dirty dir_bh with the correct directory Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:54 ` [PATCH 03/28] ext4: ext4_mkdir should dirty dir_block with the parent inode Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:54 ` [PATCH 04/28] ext4: Prevent stack overrun in ext4_file_open when recording last known mountpoint Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:54 ` [PATCH 05/28] ext4: Fix endian problem in MMP initialization Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:54 ` [PATCH 06/28] ext4: Create a new BH_Verified flag to avoid unnecessary metadata validation Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:54 ` [PATCH 07/28] ext4: Create a rocompat flag for extended metadata checksumming Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:54 ` [PATCH 08/28] ext4: Record the checksum algorithm in use in the superblock Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:54 ` [PATCH 09/28] ext4: Only call out to crc32c if necessary Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:54 ` [PATCH 10/28] ext4: Calculate and verify superblock checksum Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:54 ` [PATCH 11/28] ext4: Calculate and verify inode checksums Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-12 19:45   ` Andreas Dilger
2011-10-12 21:03     ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-13  0:02       ` Andreas Dilger
2011-10-08  7:55 ` [PATCH 12/28] ext4: Use i_generation in inode-related metadata checksums Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-12 19:52   ` Andreas Dilger
2011-10-12 21:28     ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-13  0:06       ` Andreas Dilger
2011-10-08  7:55 ` [PATCH 13/28] ext4: Create bitmap checksum helper functions Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:55 ` [PATCH 14/28] ext4: Calculate and verify checksums for inode bitmaps Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:55 ` [PATCH 15/28] ext4: Calculate and verify block bitmap checksum Darrick J. Wong
     [not found]   ` <AE869D1A-2A06-4849-8752-74924B0C05BD@dilger.ca>
2011-10-13  7:16     ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-11-07 20:00       ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-11-07 21:44         ` Andreas Dilger
2011-11-10  0:57           ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-11-10  2:34             ` Andreas Dilger
2011-10-08  7:55 ` [PATCH 16/28] ext4: Verify and calculate checksums for extent tree blocks Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:55 ` [PATCH 17/28] ext4: Calculate and verify checksums for htree nodes Darrick J. Wong
     [not found]   ` <F6453844-06CC-4245-BB39-EBA4327D4C92@dilger.ca>
2011-10-13  7:21     ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2011-10-08  7:55 ` [PATCH 18/28] ext4: Calculate and verify checksums of directory leaf blocks Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:55 ` [PATCH 19/28] ext4: Calculate and verify checksums of extended attribute blocks Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:55 ` [PATCH 20/28] ext4: Add new feature to make block group checksums use metadata_csum algorithm Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:56 ` [PATCH 21/28] ext4: Add checksums to the MMP block Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:56 ` [PATCH 22/28] jbd2: Update structure definitions and flags to support extended checksumming Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:56 ` [PATCH 23/28] jbd2: Grab a reference to the crc32c driver only when necessary Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:56 ` [PATCH 24/28] jbd2: Update structure definitions and flags to support extended checksumming Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:56 ` [PATCH 25/28] jbd2: Checksum revocation blocks Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:56 ` [PATCH 26/28] jbd2: Checksum descriptor blocks Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:56 ` [PATCH 27/28] jbd2: Checksum commit blocks Darrick J. Wong
2011-10-08  7:56 ` [PATCH 28/28] jbd2: Checksum data blocks that are stored in the journal Darrick J. Wong

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20111013072158.GR12447@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com \
    --to=djwong@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
    --cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=cmm@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=colyli@gmail.com \
    --cc=greg.freemyer@gmail.com \
    --cc=jlbec@evilplan.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=sunil.mushran@oracle.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®