linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: fix cpu_vs

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, 03 Apr 2013 16:58:52 +0400
From:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, wenqing.lz@...bao.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: fix cpu_vs_disk conversions

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 08:33:17 -0400, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:58:31PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > All new features are broken on bigendian hosts due to lack of conversion:
> > es_cache: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/28/64
> > inode's csum and ext_to_ind_migrate are also broken.
> > 
> > Testcase: make C=2 CF="-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
> 
> Thanks for this comprehensive patch.  I'm currently trying to decide
> how much of this I should try to push in before the next 3.9-rcX
> window, and how much can wait until the next merge window.
> 
> We definitely want to fix the fs corruption bug for big-endian
> systems.  For the rest, I'm on the fence, since they are less likely
> to bite people hard --- metadata checksum is still pretty new and not
> fully supported, and the punch hole bug is again also pretty new
> functionality.
> 
> Also, pushing something to Linus now could potentially disrupt the
> patches in the ext4 dev tree for the next merge window.  For the zero
But how? the patch is simple as potato.
It does not conflict with any other patches in dev branch (actually i've
prepared it against ext4/dev branch)
Personally I'll vote for rebase ext4/dev to 3.9-rc5 (or rc6) 
because rc4 has a bug which prevent two of my boxes from boot.
So I can't see any difficulties with it.
But off course if we think in terms of ultra-conservative terms it is reasonable
to just push es_cache fixes to linus and leave others for devel branch.
IMHO we already have done too many mistakes during that release so it is too
late to pretend to being too cautious.
> extents problem, there's no question what are priorities should be;
> user dataloss trumps developer convenience any day.  For the rest,
> what do you all think?  Are they likely to hit people hard enough that
> it's worth trying to get this to Linus sooner, as opposed to having
> the fixes for the rest of the big endian issues land in 3.10 and
> 3.9.1?
> 
> 					- 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
--
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