Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756775AbYBXTBx (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:01:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753096AbYBXTBp (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:01:45 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:35740 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753095AbYBXTBp (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:01:45 -0500 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:02:07 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: David Woodhouse Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, kernel list Subject: Re: jffs2: -ENOSPC when truncating file?! Message-ID: <20080224190207.GA18908@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20080223235742.GE2202@elf.ucw.cz> <1203813368.5771.174.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20080224065751.GA31293@lazybastard.org> <1203850653.13749.9.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1203850653.13749.9.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1369 Lines: 30 On Sun 2008-02-24 18:57:32, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 07:57 +0100, J?rn Engel wrote: > > Could a na??ve implementation of this get exploited by doing a large > > number of truncates that just shave single bytes off various files? > > Yeah, which is why _my_ na??ve implementation would do it for > truncate-to-zero instead of just _any_ truncate (which could even be > truncate-to-larger). > > A more complex version might allow _any_ transaction to eat into the > ALLOC_DELETION pool if it is ultimately going to reduce the amount of > space taken on the file system -- even overwriting 'real' data with > zeroes which compress better. That's going to be hard to calculate in > the general case though. > > If allowing only truncate-to-zero isn't good enough, perhaps we could > allow truncation to use the ALLOC_DELETION pool when it's going to > obsolete at least one full data node. That's not so hard to check. I believe truncate-to-zero is good enough. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/