linux-ext4 - Re: ext4 compat flag assignments

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]

Message-ID: <20061004200440.GB1656@thunk.org>
Date:	Wed, 4 Oct 2006 16:04:40 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Alexandre Ratchov <alexandre.ratchov@...l.net>
Cc:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext4 compat flag assignments

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:55:15AM +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> struct ext4_super_block
> {
> 	/* at offset 0xfe */
> 	__le32	s_desc_size;		/* Group descriptor size */
> 	/* at offset 0x150 */
> 	__le32	s_blocks_count_hi;	/* Blocks count */
> 	__le32	s_r_blocks_count_hi;	/* Reserved blocks count */
> 	__le32	s_free_blocks_count_hi;	/* Free blocks count */
> 	__le32	s_jnl_blocks_hi[17];	/* Backup of the journal inode */
> };

Why do we need to have the high blocks # of the journal inode.
s_jnl_blocks was just a backup of the i_blocks[] array.  But if we are
assuming that we will only support 64-bits using extents, we shouldn't
need s_jnl_blocks_hi[].  How specifically is this array being used in
the patches?


						- 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