linux-ext4 - Re: with -b N and block count, should mkfs.ext4 fail with dev-too-big?

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: <20090211140905.GG29220@mini-me.lan>
Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:09:05 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Jim Meyering <jim@...ering.net>
Cc:	ext <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: with -b N and block count, should mkfs.ext4 fail with
	dev-too-big?

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> 
> FWIW, I was trying to create an ext4 file system with more than 2^32
> blocks to demonstrate a parted bug fix, but with the particular device
> I was using, I couldn't even create one with 2^31-1 blocks.
> 
> When I try to create an ext4 file system specifying both block size and
> the number of blocks, the size of the underlying device should not matter,
> as long as it is large enough.

Oops, my fault.  I fixed the case where the device was exactly 16TB
(as in created via lvcreate --size 16TB, but the fix was very minimal,
since it was just before a maintenance release.  I didn't consider (or
test) the case where the device was larger than or equal to 2*32
blocks (given a specified blocksize, or 4k if no blocksize was
specified), and an explicit block size less than 2*32 was specified.

I'll put it on my todo list to fix for e2fsprogs 1.41.5.

							- 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