| 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, 6 Jan 2014 10:47:03 -0700 From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> Cc: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/2] ext4: ext4_inode_is_fast_symlink should use cluster size Ted, What about the idea to stop using the blocks count for doing the fast/slow symlink check, and instead use i_size? IMHO this is far more robust than using the blocks count, since we've repeatedly seen bugs when the number of blocks allocated to an inode changes for done reason (e.g. xattrs, bigalloc, multi-block xattrs in the future). AFAIK the kernel and e2fsprogs have always been consistent with symlinks <= 60 bytes being stored in the inode. Cheers, Andreas > On Jan 6, 2014, at 7:51, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 01:13:33PM +0800, Yongqiang Yang wrote: >> From: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com> >> >> can be reproduced by xfstests 62 with bigalloc and 128bit size inode. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Yang <yangyongqiang01@...du.com> > > Thanks, applied. > > - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists