From: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert-97jfqw80gc6171pxa8y+qA@public.gmane.org>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Bernd Schubert
<bernd.schubert-mPn0NPGs4xGatNDF+KUbs4QuADTiUCJX@public.gmane.org>,
linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-ext4-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
tytso-3s7WtUTddSA@public.gmane.org,
hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org,
adilger-KloliPT79xf2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org,
yong.fan-KloliPT79xf2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org,
linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] 32/64 bit llseek hashes (v3)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:59:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E5D5D3B.7010402@fastmail.fm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110823215608.GH25350-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
On 08/23/2011 11:56 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 01:54:04PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>> With the ext3/ext4 directory index implementation hashes are used to specify
>> offsets for llseek(). For compatibility with NFSv2 and 32-bit user space
>> on 64-bit systems (kernel space) ext3/ext4 currently only return 32-bit
>> hashes and therefore the probability of hash collisions for larger directories
>> is rather high. As recently reported on the NFS mailing list that theoretical
>> problem also happens on real systems:
>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.nfs/40863
>>
>> The following series adds two new f_mode flags to tell ext4
>> to use 32-bit or 64-bit hash values for llseek() calls.
>> These flags can then used by network file systems, such as NFS, to
>> request 32-bit or 64-bit offsets (hashes).
>>
>> Version 3:
>> - remove patch "RFC: Remove check for a 32-bit cookie in nfsd4_readdir()",
>> I think Bruce wanted to take it seperately as bug fix. It should be applied
>> before applying the remaining NFS patches, as without it NFSv4 will always
>> fail with the new 64-bit ext4 seek hashes.
>
> Yes, applied to my for-3.2 branch at
> git://linux-nfs.org/~bfields/linux.git.
>
> For the NFS patches:
>
> Acked-by: J. Bruce Fields<bfields-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>
> OK by me if they go in through ext4 tree, or however's most convenient.
Great, thanks!
Cheers,
Bernd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@itwm.fraunhofer.de>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
tytso@mit.edu, hch@infradead.org, adilger@whamcloud.com,
yong.fan@whamcloud.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] 32/64 bit llseek hashes (v3)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:59:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E5D5D3B.7010402@fastmail.fm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110823215608.GH25350@fieldses.org>
On 08/23/2011 11:56 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 01:54:04PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>> With the ext3/ext4 directory index implementation hashes are used to specify
>> offsets for llseek(). For compatibility with NFSv2 and 32-bit user space
>> on 64-bit systems (kernel space) ext3/ext4 currently only return 32-bit
>> hashes and therefore the probability of hash collisions for larger directories
>> is rather high. As recently reported on the NFS mailing list that theoretical
>> problem also happens on real systems:
>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.nfs/40863
>>
>> The following series adds two new f_mode flags to tell ext4
>> to use 32-bit or 64-bit hash values for llseek() calls.
>> These flags can then used by network file systems, such as NFS, to
>> request 32-bit or 64-bit offsets (hashes).
>>
>> Version 3:
>> - remove patch "RFC: Remove check for a 32-bit cookie in nfsd4_readdir()",
>> I think Bruce wanted to take it seperately as bug fix. It should be applied
>> before applying the remaining NFS patches, as without it NFSv4 will always
>> fail with the new 64-bit ext4 seek hashes.
>
> Yes, applied to my for-3.2 branch at
> git://linux-nfs.org/~bfields/linux.git.
>
> For the NFS patches:
>
> Acked-by: J. Bruce Fields<bfields@redhat.com>
>
> OK by me if they go in through ext4 tree, or however's most convenient.
Great, thanks!
Cheers,
Bernd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-30 21:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-16 11:54 [PATCH 0/2] 32/64 bit llseek hashes (v3) Bernd Schubert
2011-08-16 11:54 ` [PATCH 3 1/4] Add new FMODE flags: FMODE_32bithash and FMODE_64bithash Bernd Schubert
2011-08-16 11:54 ` [PATCH 3 2/4] Return 32/64-bit dir name hash according to usage type Bernd Schubert
2011-08-19 22:29 ` Ted Ts'o
[not found] ` <20110819222951.GC3578-AKGzg7BKzIDYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>
2011-08-20 6:23 ` Andreas Dilger
2011-08-20 6:23 ` Andreas Dilger
2011-08-30 22:07 ` Bernd Schubert
[not found] ` <20110816115404.1810393.47239.stgit-bi+AKbBUZKY6gyzm1THtWbp2dZbC/Bob@public.gmane.org>
2011-08-16 11:54 ` [PATCH 3 3/4] nfsd_open(): rename 'int access' to 'int may_flags' in nfsd_open() Bernd Schubert
2011-08-16 11:54 ` Bernd Schubert
2011-08-16 11:54 ` [PATCH 3 4/4] nfsd: vfs_llseek() with 32 or 64 bit offsets (hashes) Bernd Schubert
2011-08-16 11:54 ` Bernd Schubert
2011-08-23 21:56 ` [PATCH 0/2] 32/64 bit llseek hashes (v3) J. Bruce Fields
[not found] ` <20110823215608.GH25350-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
2011-08-30 21:59 ` Bernd Schubert [this message]
2011-08-30 21:59 ` Bernd Schubert
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=4E5D5D3B.7010402@fastmail.fm \
--to=bernd.schubert-97jfqw80gc6171pxa8y+qa@public.gmane.org \
--cc=adilger-KloliPT79xf2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=bernd.schubert-mPn0NPGs4xGatNDF+KUbs4QuADTiUCJX@public.gmane.org \
--cc=bfields-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org \
--cc=hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-ext4-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=tytso-3s7WtUTddSA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=yong.fan-KloliPT79xf2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.