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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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