linux-ext4 - Re: 64bit + resize2fs... this is Not Good.

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:	Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:04:50 -0500
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 64bit + resize2fs... this is Not Good.

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:39:42PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> The reason why you lost so badly when you did an off-line resize was
> because you explicitly changed the resize limit default, via the -E
> resize=NNN option.  (Can you explain to me your thinking about why you
> specified this, just out of curiosity?)  Normally the default is 1000
> times the size of the original file system, or for a file system
> larger than 1.6TB, enough so that the file system can be resized to
> the maximum amount that can be supported via the resize_inode scheme,
> which is 16TB.

Correction: for any file system larger than 16GB....

	    	    	 	       - Ted
--
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