Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:55:20 -0700
From: Kees Cook <>
To: Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc: LKML <>, David Windsor <>, 
	"Darrick J. Wong" <>,, 
	Linux-MM <>, 
	"" <>
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 <> 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 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.