linux-ext4 - Re: 2.6.21-ext4-1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:58:56 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Johann Lombardi <johann.lombardi@...l.net>,
	"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dave Chinner <dgc@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-ext4-1

Sorry, I forgot to include the URL's where ext4 development patchset
can be found:

ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/ext4-patches/2.6.21-ext4-1

					- Ted

On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:14:57AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> I've respun the ext4 development patchset, with Amit's updated fallocate
> patches.  I've added Dave's patch to add ia64 support to the fallocate
> system call, but *not* the XFS fallocate support patches.  (Probably
> better for them to live in an xfs tree, where they can more easily
> tested and updated.)  Yes, we haven't reached complete closure on the
> fallocate system call calling convention, but it's enough for us to get
> more testing in -mm.
> 
> Also added Johann's jbd2-stats-through-procfs patches; it provides
> useful help in turning the size of the journal, which will be useful in
> benchmarking efforts.  In addition, Alex Tomas's patch to free
> just-allocated patches when there is an error inserting the extent into
> the extent tree has also been included.
> 
> The patches have been compile-tested on x86, and compile/run-tested on
> x86/UML.  Would appreciate reports about testing on other platforms.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 						- Ted
> 
> P.S.  One bug which I've noted --- if there is a failure due to disk
> filling up, running e2fsck on the filesystem will show that the i_blocks
> fields on the inodes where there was a failure to allocate disk blocks
> are left incorrect.  I'm guessing this is a bug in the delayed
> allocation patches.  Alex, when you have a moment, could you take a
> look?  Thanks!!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html