linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] Add flag to files with blocks intentionally past EOF

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]

Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:40:56 -0600
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
CC:	"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add flag to files with blocks intentionally past EOF

Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2010-01-20, at 02:03, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote:

...

>> If we remove ext4_ioctl support i guess that patch can become much
>> simpler.
> 
> 
> Sure it will be simpler, but less useful.  The point of exposing this
> flag via lsattr is to allow userspace to determine which files are
> holding blocks beyond EOF, so that if the filesystem is getting too full
> it is possible to run e.g. "lsattr -R" and find files with this EOF
> attribute and truncate them.  Without keeping at least the EOFBLOCKS
> flag in USER_VISIBLE this is impossible.

Well, I submitted an updated patch without it.  We can add another when
we sort out what we really want with the flags, but fixing the
corruption e2fsck finds seems paramount.

I think the case of stray files w/ blocks past EOF is probably pretty
rare - but I guess I agree, at least seeing the flags would be nice.

But let's handle that separately...

-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