linux-ext4 - Re: What's cooking in e2fsprogs.git (topics)

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: <20080225202300.GC8386@mit.edu>
Date:	Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:23:00 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What's cooking in e2fsprogs.git (topics)

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:32:34AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Are you sure?  This was her patch comment, from
> [PATCH] ext4: Don't set EXTENTS_FL flag for fast symlinks:

You're right, I confused myself.

> > But you do raise a good point that we need to support using the
> > extents format in order to support blocks > 2**32, so we can't just
> > arbitrary convert all symlinks to the old-style direct block maps.
> 
> ... so I think we really *should* be unconditionally storing *long*
> symlinks in extent format, on ext4... right?

Yes, I think so.  Being liberal in what you receive is probably a good
idea, but we should only store new symlinks in one standard format,
and the extents format makes sense since it will allow us to support
48-bit block numbers.

            	     	    	       	   - Ted
-
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