Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:55:20 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>, "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/30] xfs: Define usercopy region in xfs_inode slab cache On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote: > One thing I've been wondering is wether we should actually just > get rid of the online area. Compared to reading an inode from > disk a single additional kmalloc is negligible, and not having the > inline data / extent list would allow us to reduce the inode size > significantly. > > Kees/David: how many of these patches are file systems with some > sort of inline data? Given that it's only about 30 patches declaring > allocations either entirely valid for user copy or not might end up > being nicer in many ways than these offsets. 9 filesystems use some form of inline data: xfs, vxfs, ufs, orangefs, exofs, befs, jfs, ext2, and ext4. How much of each slab is whitelisted varies by filesystem (e.g. ext2/4 uses i_data for other things, but ufs and orangefs and have a dedicate field for symlink names). -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.