linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH/RFC] - make ext3 more robust in the face of filesystem corruption

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061019073518.GN3509@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date:	Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:35:18 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <esandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] - make ext3 more robust in the face of filesystem corruption

On Oct 18, 2006  19:26 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >Well, it would also be possible to look into inode->i_blocks to see what
> >blocks exist past this offset, but that is complicated by the introduction
> > <eom>
> introduction of ...?  :)

Sorry - introduction of extents.  So we can't just look into the i_blocks
{d,t,}indirect blocks to work out the maximum reasonable size for an inode
without adding decoding of extents into this code.  Maybe if "SEEK_DATA"
is added to ext3 (patch was proposed this past week) then we could seek
past the hole efficiently.  For now I'm happy to assume i_blocks * 512 is
a safe upper limit on the file size.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.

-
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