linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 5 2/4] Return 32/64-bit dir name hash according to usage type

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:42:02 -0500
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...mcloud.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...m.fraunhofer.de>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Fan Yong <yong.fan@...mcloud.com>,
	bfields@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5 2/4] Return 32/64-bit dir name hash according to usage type

On 2012-04-23, at 5:23 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> I'm curious about the above as well as:
> 
>        case SEEK_END:
>                if (unlikely(offset > 0))
>                        goto out_err; /* not supported for directories */
> 
> The previous .llseek handler, and the generic handler for other filesystems, allow seeking past the end of the dir AFAICT.  (not sure why you'd want to, but I don't see that you'd get an error back).
> 
> Is there a reason to uniquely exclude it in ext4?  Does that line up with POSIX?

I don't know what the origin of this was...  I don't think there is a real reason for it except that it doesn't make any sense to do so.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger                       Whamcloud, Inc.
Principal Lustre Engineer            http://www.whamcloud.com/




--
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