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:	14 Nov 2012 02:20:21 -0500
From:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To:	linux@...izon.com, tytso@....edu
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 64bit + resize2fs... this is Not Good.

> So the first question is figuring out why the on-line resizing didn't
> work for you, since that is what I've spent most of my time trying to
> fix up.  The secondary question then is trying to figure out whappened
> with the off-line resize, and to fix that bug in e2fsprogs.

If you don't mind, *my* primary question is "what can I salvage from this
rubble?", since I didn't happen to have 8 TB of backup space available
to me when I did the resize, and there's soem stuff on the FS I'd
rather not lose...

So my big question is "where the F did inodes 129 through 2048
get copied to?", since the root directory contains a lot of inodes
in that range, and every one I can recover saves a lot of
pawing through lost+found later...

In hindsght, I wish to hell I had turned on -d 14 and logged the
results...

If you happen to want to rerun your test with -d8 and tell me what
happened there, I'd definitely appreciate it.
--
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