| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:52:51 +0000 From: "Peter Meier" <meiepeter@...il.com> To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Trying out 2.6.26-ext4-3 Hi once more, looking around further, I spotted this patch in the patch queue: ext4_journal_credits_fix_for_writepages.patch Again, I'm not a file system hacker, but if I understand the situa- tion correctly, this patch aims to correct the number of credits that write activity will try to reserve for a transaction in certain situations and when using delayed allocation. I think this patch gets it wrong in some way, and as a result tries to reserve an amount of credits that far exceeds the maximum transaction size for an ordinarz 128 MB journal, or maybe this hints at a larger problem with delayed allocation of some kind. So, it seems my options for continuing today's installation activities are to try 2.6.26-ext4-3 but with the above patch re- verted, or use 2.6.26-ext4-3 as is but disable delayed alloca- tion via the mount option. I'm very unsure about the ramifications of either. If I revert the patch, will I get data corruption from having no solution to the problem it attempts to fix? If I disable delayed allocation, will my FS lose some magic I can't get back at a later date when I renable it again? Or is delayed allocation purely a "runtime feature" with no effects on the on-disk format? Greetings, Peter -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists