linux-ext4 - Re: update uninitialized-block-groups.patch and mballoc-core.patch

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: <20071003183718.GM5578@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date:	Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:37:18 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Avantika Mathur <mathur@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: update uninitialized-block-groups.patch and mballoc-core.patch

On Oct 03, 2007  15:30 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> +	if (block_group == sbi->s_gdb_count - 1) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Even though mke2fs always initialize first and last group
> +		 * if some other tool enabled the EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT we 
> need
> +		 * to make sure we calculate the right free blocks
> +		 */
> +		free_blocks = ext4_blocks_count(sbi->s_es) -
> +				le32_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_first_data_block) -
> +				(EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP(sb) * 
> sbi->s_groups_count) -
> +				bit_max;

Did you verify that subtracting s_first_data_block is indeed the right
thing to do.  I _think_ yes, but I didn't look at it very closely when
I wrote it late last night.

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