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  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]
Date:	Thu, 11 Oct 2007 03:19:48 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <>,
	linux-ext4 <>,
	Mingming Cao <>
Subject: Re: ext4_inode difference between e2fsprogs and ext4

On Oct 11, 2007  14:30 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> In ext4 we have
>  union { 
>                struct {
>                        __le16  l_i_reserved1;  /* Obsoleted fragment 
>                        number/size which are removed in ext4 */
>                        __le16  l_i_file_acl_high;
>                        __le16  l_i_uid_high;   /* these 2 fields */
>                        __le16  l_i_gid_high;   /* were reserved2[0] */
>                        __u32   l_i_reserved2;
>                } linux2;
> Last week we were discussing about taking that l_i_reserved1 and using that 
> for making file_acl 64 bit and using the lower l_i_reserved2 for 64 bit dir_acl. 

We have l_i_file_acl_high already to give us 48-bit i_file_acl, which is
sufficient, IMHO.  There is no need to have a larger i_dir_acl since this
field is only really used for i_size_high and should be renamed as such
instead of just being a macro.

> Now where will i put l_i_blocks_hi ?

Just where it is now - in l_i_reserved1...

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
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists