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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:22:31 +0800
From:	"Yan Zheng" <yanzheng@...n.com>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: How to insure ext4_alloc_blocks always returns blocks below 0xffffffff when using indirect index.

Hi all.

Druing reading the source codes of indirect index,  there is a doubt
in my mind. When using indirect index, physical block number must not
exceed 0xffffffff, but I cann' t find any clue  about how
ext4_alloc_blocks insure that.  Codes that check 64bit_feature is only
in ext4_fill_super and they do nothing affects block allocation
algorithm.  Maybe ext4_alloc_blocks should  check whether inode has
EXT4_EXTENTS_FL flags and only search block groups that have blocks
below 0xffffffff when not.

The source codes I read is 2.6.22.

Thanks in advance.
YZ
-
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ