Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 22:31:26 +1000 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>, "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 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 01:14:53AM -0700, 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. Probably should. I've already been looking at killing the inline extents array to simplify the management of the extent list (much simpler to index by rbtree when we don't have direct/indirect structures), so killing the inline data would get rid of the other part of the union the inline data sits in. OTOH, if we're going to have to dynamically allocate the memory for the extent/inline data for the data fork, it may just be easier to make the entire data fork a dynamic allocation (like the attr fork). Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.com
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.