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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:22:23 -0700
From:	Andreas Dilger <>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Use superblock s_raid_stripe_width as stripe size
	during block allocation.

On Jan 10, 2008  09:58 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > d) if s_stripe is still > s_blocks_per_group try s_raid_stride
> > e) if s_stripe is still > s_blocks_per_group use 0
> But i guess mke2fs and tune2fs should validate the value of
> s_raid_stripe_width and s_raid_stride. Both of them should be less that
> blocks per group. Should I add extra check in the kernel for them ?

It's true that mke2fs and tune2fs should validate this, but it is also
possible to become corrupted, and e2fsck doesn't fix it yet nor can it
make a good estimate of the right value.

> > > +	if (!sbi->s_stripe ||
> > > +			sbi->s_stripe >= sbi->s_blocks_per_group) {
> > 
> So what do you think should it be > or >=. Looking at the mballoc I
> guess it should work with stripe size equal to blocks per group. I am
> not sure how efficient the allocation would be though.

I think if s_stripe == s_blocks_per_group that is fine...  For 1kB block
filesystem that is only 8MB in size.

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, 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