linux-ext4 - Re: e2fsck (git) on ext4: unsupported feature(s): huge

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:	Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:53:42 +0200
From:	supersud501 <supersud501@...oo.de>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
CC:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e2fsck (git) on ext4: unsupported feature(s): huge_file

Theodore Tso wrote:
> 
> That patch which I just sent out passes the regression test suite, but
> it hasn't been extensively tested for actual *huge* files.
> (Specifically, files with the EXT4_HUGE_FILE_FL because they are
> larger than 2TB and so i_blocks had to be specified in units of
> filesystem blocksize, instead of units of 512 bytes.)
> 
> If you could apply the patch I just sent out and then run "e2fsck -nf
> /dev/sdXXX" and let me know you get, that would be much appreciated.
> 

I'll do when the patch arrives in git (or where do i get it from?)

> In answer to question of how to determine if you actually *have* any
> large files, the simplest thing to do is to use debugfs to temporarily
> remove huge_file feature:
> 
> debugfs -w /dev/sdXXX               <------- disable the huge_file feature
> debugfs: features ^huge_file
> debugfs: quit
> 
> e2fsck -nf /dev/sdXXX
> 
> debugfs -w /dev/sdXXX               <------- re-enable the huge_file feature
> debugfs: features huge_file
> debugfs: quit
> 
> If you see error messages about i_blocks values being wrong (with the
> huge_file feature disabled), then the inodes that are referenced are
> the ones that have the huge_file flag set.
> 

Yeah, i'm getting some (~80) errors about i blocks being wrong (besides 
errors that a fast symlink has extents_fl set), and the error is always 
from the type: "i_blocks is x, should be x+8", so it always wants to add 
8 to the existing number. is this the mentioned miscalculation?

however, as i read in the mail from eric, i didn't know that there is a 
difference between "large" and "huge" files and apparently meant "large" 
(>2gb) files. i've got no "huge" (~2TB) files on my drive (and never had).

so i wonder why the flag is set on my drive and if the i_blocks errors i 
get are because of some miscalculation (which shouldn't happen, because 
i have no huge files, right?) or really are some errors (but it's weird 
e2fsck wants to set them always to x+8). doesn't make much sense to me yet.

oh and: thanks for getting into my problem and trying to help me!

--
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