linux-ext4 - Re: 64bit filesystem questions

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: <4DF23611.7000307@cfl.rr.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:19:45 -0400
From:	Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 64bit filesystem questions

On 6/9/2011 8:08 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> There is only a single block pointer for each bitmap per group.  That said,
> with flex_bg this is mostly meaningless, since the bitmaps do not have to
> be located in the group, and a flex group is the same as a virtual group
> that is {flex_bg_factor} times as large.

Of course there is only a single pointer because there is only a single 
bitmap.  What does this have to do with limiting the block count to 8 * 
blocksize?

>> 3)  Why does 64bit disable the resize inode?
>
> Because the on-disk format of the resize inode is only suitable for 32-bit
> filesystems (it is an indirect-block mapped file and cannot reserve blocks
> beyond 2^32).  The "future" way to resize filesystems is using the META_BG
> feature, but the ability to use it has not been integrated into the kernel
> or e2fsprogs yet.

Ahh, right... no indirect blocks.  Couldn't and shouldn't the resize 
inode just use extents instead?  Also I thought that META_BG was an idea 
that eventually become FLEX_BG and has been dropped?

--
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