linux-ext4 - How to insure ext4_alloc_blocks always returns blocks below 0xffffffff when using indirect index.

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]

Message-ID: <3d0408630708021922h7f382cdfk1d67f5f25029c2d1@mail.gmail.com>
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