linux-ext4 - status on 'tune2fs -I 256' ?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7284e2210906041651g10761a2fy7eda6d308b7ccb4d@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jun 2009 19:51:34 -0400
From:	Doug Hunley <doug.hunley@...il.com>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: status on 'tune2fs -I 256' ?

I recently converted my '/' filesytem to ext4 from ext3 using:
tune2fs  -O extents,uninit_bg,dir_index /dev/md3

I did *not* use '-I 256' as I'd read several reports of this causing
corruption. However, I've just checked the ext4.txt as shipped with
2.6.29 and it quite clearly states:
If the filesystem was created with 128 byte inodes, it can be
    converted to use 256 byte for greater efficiency via:

        # tune2fs -I 256 /dev/hda1

Is this now safe to do? Or should the documentation be updated to
reflect the current corruption issue? Would I be ok to run 'tune2fs -I
256 /dev/md3' (followed by a forced fsck)?

Thanks

-- 
Douglas J Hunley - doug.hunley@...il.com
http://douglasjhunley.com
Twitter: @hunleyd
--
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