linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Multiple mount protection

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:	Thu, 31 May 2007 12:16:27 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Kalpak Shah <kalpak@...sterfs.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Multiple mount protection

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:28:33AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> 
> So can I assume that the INCOMPAT_MMP flag and the s_mmp_interval and
> s_mmp_block superblock fields will be reserved regardless of whether the
> patches go into ext4? I had attached the patches in the last mail so you
> can share your views on them.

Yes, i've reserved the code point and superblock fields.  I'm not
going to add INCOMPAT_MMP flag to the supported file until I get and
integrate the patch ext2fs_open() that actually tests for the flag,
though, since that would be a bit silly.

I assume the patch will add a flag to ext2fs_open which skips the MMP
checking.  After all, tune2fs is allowed to make changes to the
superblock while the filesystem is mounted.  So it needs to be able to
open the filesystem read/only even if it is mounted.

Regards,

						- Ted
-
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