linux-ext4 - Re: 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4A2878E9.40802@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:46:17 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Doug Hunley <doug.hunley@...il.com>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: status on 'tune2fs -I 256' ?

Doug Hunley wrote:
> 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)?

AFAIK it still has dangerous corners... We should probably update the
ext4.txt, and TBH I'd rather disable the functionality in e2fsprogs
until it's safe.

(the case I ran into was when there was not actually enough space to
double the size of all the inodes - it did not know this ahead of time
and it did not fail gracefully).

-Eric
--
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