linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] Print extent information in debugfs

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:	Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:18:02 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
CC:	Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@...gle.com>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Print extent information in debugfs

Theodore Tso wrote:

...

> The Extents and Blocks information display redundant information, so
> what I've done is to change the patch so that if the file uses
> extent-based block maps, the Extents information is displayed instead
> of the BLOCKS information, and it is extended to include more
> information, like this:
> 
> ...
>  atime: 0x4a6d164e:82c08b38 -- Sun Jul 26 22:51:58 2009
>  mtime: 0x4a6d164e:861ee098 -- Sun Jul 26 22:51:58 2009
> crtime: 0x4a6d164e:82c08b38 -- Sun Jul 26 22:51:58 2009
> Size of extra inode fields: 28
> EXTENTS:
> (0-60 #61): 342272-342332, (61-127 #67 [uninit]): 537822-537888

Perhaps a bit late, but I find the "#<extent length>" reporting very
unintuitive.  Doesn't "#X" usually imply ordering?  How about:

(0-60 [61b]): 342272-342332, (61-127 [67b,uninit]): 537822-537888

... or maybe some other ideas.  IMHO it's all a bit hard to read anyway
unless it's printed in a table format ala the new filefrag output.

-Eric

--
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