linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] mke2fs: skip alignment questioning if -F specified

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <31D4615D-CB8C-48D7-934D-2CDAF327CF44@sun.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:54:39 -0700
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To:	tytso@....edu
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mke2fs: skip alignment questioning if -F specified

On 2010-03-11, at 19:48, tytso@....edu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:53:09PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> RH bug 569021 - mke2fs insists on user interaction even if stdin is  
>> not a tty and -F is passed
>>
>> This is just a warning, -F should easily override it.

Since this is just a warning, do we really need to have "-F" at all?   
I dislike requiring "-F" on common actions, because it means that it  
will commonly be used, but may accidentally override some unintended  
problem.

We've lived without block device alignment until now, and it seems  
somewhat unpleasant that mke2fs may start failing (if -F is not given)  
for situations where it previously worked just fine.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

--
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