linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 11/37] e2fsck: fix the extended attribute checksum error message

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:	Fri, 2 May 2014 14:46:56 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
cc:	tytso@....edu, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/37] e2fsck: fix the extended attribute checksum error
 message

On Thu, 1 May 2014, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

> Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 16:13:34 -0700
> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
> To: tytso@....edu, darrick.wong@...cle.com
> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH 11/37] e2fsck: fix the extended attribute checksum error
>     message
> 
> Make the "EA block passes checks but fails checksum" message less
> strange.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
> ---
>  e2fsck/problem.c |   12 +++++-------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c
> index 0999399..ec20bd1 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/problem.c
> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.c
> @@ -992,19 +992,17 @@ static struct e2fsck_problem problem_table[] = {
>  	     "extent\n\t(logical @b %c, @n physical @b %b, len %N)\n"),
>  	  PROMPT_FIX, 0 },
>  
> -	/* Extended attribute block checksum for inode does not match. */
> +	/* Extended attribute block checksum does not match. */

The "for inode" is still there in the message, so I do not think
there is a reason to remove it from the comment.

>  	{ PR_1_EA_BLOCK_CSUM_INVALID,
> -	  N_("Extended attribute @a @b %b checksum for @i %i does not "
> -	     "match.  "),
> +	  N_("@a @b %b checksum for @i %i does not match.  "),
>  	  PROMPT_CLEAR, PR_INITIAL_CSUM },
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Extended attribute block passes checks, but checksum for inode does
> -	 * not match.
> +	 * Extended attribute block passes checks, but checksum does not
> +	 * match.
>  	 */
>  	{ PR_1_EA_BLOCK_ONLY_CSUM_INVALID,
> -	  N_("Extended attribute @a @b %b passes checks, but checksum for "
> -	     "@i %i does not match.  "),
> +	  N_("@a @b %b passes checks, but checksum does not match.  "),

Is there a reason to remove the inode number from the message ?

Thanks!
-Lukas

>  	  PROMPT_FIX, 0 },
>  
>  	/*
> 
> --
> 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