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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 19:51:34 -0400 From: Doug Hunley <doug.hunley@...il.com> To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: status on 'tune2fs -I 256' ? I recently converted my '/' filesytem to ext4 from ext3 using: tune2fs -O extents,uninit_bg,dir_index /dev/md3 I did *not* use '-I 256' as I'd read several reports of this causing corruption. However, I've just checked the ext4.txt as shipped with 2.6.29 and it quite clearly states: If the filesystem was created with 128 byte inodes, it can be converted to use 256 byte for greater efficiency via: # tune2fs -I 256 /dev/hda1 Is this now safe to do? Or should the documentation be updated to reflect the current corruption issue? Would I be ok to run 'tune2fs -I 256 /dev/md3' (followed by a forced fsck)? Thanks -- Douglas J Hunley - doug.hunley@...il.com http://douglasjhunley.com Twitter: @hunleyd -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists