linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/12] handling of 64-bit block counts in e2fsprofs

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: <20070612100220.GM5181@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:02:20 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To:	Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/12] handling of 64-bit block counts in e2fsprofs

On Jun 11, 2007  18:42 +0200, Valerie Clement wrote:
> +#ifdef _EXT4FS_
> +#define EXT2_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP(s)	((__u64)EXT2_SB(s)->s_blocks_per_group)
> +#else
>  #define EXT2_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP(s)	(EXT2_SB(s)->s_blocks_per_group)
> +#endif

Are there actually plans for s_blocks_per_group > 2^32?  We can already handle
up to 2^32 groups, so we have plenty of room to spare.

> @@ -573,6 +577,54 @@ struct ext2_super_block {
>  	__u32	s_reserved[167];	/* Padding to the end of the block */
>  };
>  
> +#ifdef _EXT4FS_
> +#define EXT2_BLOCKS_COUNT(s)						\
> +	((s)->s_blocks_count + ((__u64)(s)->s_blocks_count_hi << 32))
> +
> +#define EXT2_BLOCKS_COUNT_SET(s, v)			\
> +	do {						\
> +		(s)->s_blocks_count = (v);		\
> +		(s)->s_blocks_count_hi = (v) >> 32;	\
> +	} while (0)
> +
> +#define EXT2_R_BLOCKS_COUNT(s)						\
> +	((s)->s_r_blocks_count + ((__u64)(s)->s_r_blocks_count_hi << 32))
> +
> +#define EXT2_R_BLOCKS_COUNT_SET(s, v)			\
> +	do {						\
> +		(s)->s_r_blocks_count = (v);		\
> +		(s)->s_r_blocks_count_hi = (v) >> 32;	\
> +	} while (0)
> +
> +#define EXT2_FREE_BLOCKS_COUNT(s)					\
> +	((s)->s_free_blocks_count + ((__u64)(s)->s_free_blocks_hi << 32))
> +
> +#define EXT2_FREE_BLOCKS_COUNT_SET(s, v)		\
> +	do {						\
> +		(s)->s_free_blocks_count = (v);		\
> +		(s)->s_free_blocks_hi = (v) >> 32;	\
> +	} while (0)
> +#else
> +#define EXT2_BLOCKS_COUNT(s)		((s)->s_blocks_count)
> +#define EXT2_R_BLOCKS_COUNT(s)		((s)->s_r_blocks_count)
> +#define EXT2_FREE_BLOCKS_COUNT(s)	((s)->s_free_blocks_count)

I don't think any of this (above or in most/all of the rest of this patch)
should be conditional upon #ifdef _EXT4FS_.  Instead, it should depend on
INCOMPAT_64BIT being set in the superblock.  I don't think it introduces
any compatibility issues by itself.


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