linux-ext4 - Re: qla2xxx BUG: workqueue leaked lock or atomic

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: <20070313070134.GK5266@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 03:01:34 -0400
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To:	Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>
Cc:	cmm@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andre Noll <maan@...temlinux.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: qla2xxx BUG: workqueue leaked lock or atomic

On Mar 12, 2007  16:22 +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
> Mingming Cao wrote:
> >IBM has done some testing (dbench, fsstress, fsx, tiobench, iozone etc)
> >on 10TB ext3, I think RedHat and BULL have done similar test on >8TB
> >ext3 too.
> 
> Is there not a problem of backward-compatibility with old kernels?
> Doesn't we need to handle a new INCOMPAT flag in e2fsprogs and kernel
> before allowing ext3 filesystems greater than 8T?

No, it really depends on the kernel.  There were some bugs that caused
problems with > 8TB because of signed 32-bit int problems, so it isn't
really recommended to use > 8TB unless you know this is fixed in your
kernel (and any older kernel you might have to downgrade to).

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