linux-ext4 - Re: Creating a >32bit blocks filesystem.

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: <4641FEAC.9090203@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 09 May 2007 12:02:36 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	"Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
CC:	Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Creating a >32bit blocks filesystem.

Jose R. Santos wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 10:21:44 -0500
> Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:

>> Jose, you mentioned that some blocks are still "unsigned long" on
>> 32-bits... they shouldn't be, the LBD work should have fixed all those
>> long ago.  But there is still the 16TB page cache limit in force.
> 
> Found this in mke2fs.c
>                 unsigned long blocks = EXT2_BLOCKS_COUNT(fs->super);
>                 unsigned long start;

Ah, ok, I thought you were talking about kernelspace...

yeah, that looks like a problem.  And it's from a patch called
"use_64bit_block_numbers"  *grin*

there are a few related typedefs in e2fsprogs, such as blk_t, which is __u64

should we be using those for block number containers?

-Eric
-
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