| 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: Mon, 09 May 2011 13:47:41 +0000 From: Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@...entia.net> To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> Cc: <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: mounting ext3 with another superblock doesn't work? On Mon, 9 May 2011 15:10:27 +0200, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote: > Well, the block size is most likely the same (4 KB) in both the old and > the new fs (unless you tinkered with it but I don't expect that). That > defines size of a block group and thus position of inodes, bitmaps, etc. > Another variable is a number of inodes (per group). If you have an old > superblock you can compare the old and the new number of inodes and you > can be sure. Otherwise you rely on whether the math in the mkfs with which > you've originally created the fs is the same as the math in your current > mkfs (and you didn't specify any special options regarding this)... Well I didn't change them but maybe Debian has modified the defaults in mke2fs.conf since I created the fs initially. inode_size = 256 could be a candidate. Unfortunately I don't remember which Debian/e2fsprogs I've used to create the fs originally. Was this ever set to 128 (i mean as a default for e2fsprogs itself, when it was not set in mke2fs.conf)? If the values would have actually changed, wouldn't this mean that all data was then gone? Cheers, Chris -- 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