linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/2] OCFS2: Allow huge (> 16 TiB) volumes to mount

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]

Message-Id: <DA64905D-C83B-4CF5-9405-65F7F82F9563@dilger.ca>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:46:50 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To:	"Patrick J. LoPresti" <lopresti@...il.com>
Cc:	ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] OCFS2: Allow huge (> 16 TiB) volumes to mount

On 2010-07-12, at 19:08, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> wrote:
>> On 2010-07-11, at 11:04, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
>>> 
>>> +     /* Absolute addressability check (borrowed from ext4/super.c) */
>>> +     if ((max_block >
>>> +          (sector_t)(~0LL) >> (osb->sb->s_blocksize_bits - 9)) ||
>>> +         (max_block > (pgoff_t)(~0LL) >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT -
>>> +                                          osb->sb->s_blocksize_bits))) {
>>> +             mlog(ML_ERROR, "Volume too large "
>>> +                  "to mount safely on this system");
>>> +             status = -EFBIG;
>>> +             goto out;
>>> +     }
>> 
>> This hunk of code is actually in several filesystems.  It wouldn't be a bad idea to make it a library function that can be called by the filesystem to check the kernel page cache and block layer can handle these large filesystems.
> 
> True, but some of them do it differently (e.g. see the #if switch in
> xfs_sb_validate_fsb_count).  Tracking down all variants and changing
> them is a much larger task than my simple patch.
> 
> Are you suggesting I need to do this before my patch is accepted at
> all?  Or is this a refactoring that can happen later?

I'm just suggesting it should be done at some point.  I thought it would be better to do it first, rather than add yet another copy of this code.  That said, I hate to block useful fixes because of cleanup (and I have no control over OCFS2 anyway :-).  However, I've found that once the fix is in people usually forget (or become too busy) to do the cleanup and it just lingers on unseen.

Cheers, Andreas





--
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