| 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, 10 Sep 2009 23:51:58 +0200 From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com> To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> Cc: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC V3] ext4: limit block allocations for indirect-block files to < 2^32 On Sep 10, 2009 16:16 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Any suggestions on the naming issues? (what's the official name for a > "not-extent-based-file?") I've always used "block mapped" (i.e. mapped block-by-block) vs. "extent mapped". > However, Ric just ran a massive fs_mark test on a 60T filesystem that he > created with "mke2fs" (no extents and no journal - accidentally) and we > got no corruption even without this patch. > > I need to see if a filesystem w/o the extents feature (at all, vs. some > old-format files on an extents fs) never even tries to allocate past > 2^32; I didn't think so, but now not so sure. Well, it may depend a lot on which inodes are in use. That will set the goal block, and may prevent any above-16TB allocations. Either you could fill the bitmaps with 0xff (and zero the free blocks counters, to avoid problems with mballoc), or actually fill the first 16TB of the filesystem. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. -- 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