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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:17:19 -0600
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
CC:	tytso@....edu, ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mke2fs: skip alignment questioning if -F specified

Andreas Dilger wrote:
> 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.

Well, that's a good point, dropping the -F requirement is fine with me too,
I guess.

Ted do you want to just toss in:

-		if (!force)
-			proceed_question();

?  I can send a patch but it may take longer for you to extract it from email ;)

-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