[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120111144827.GA32381@fieldses.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:48:27 -0500
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...mcloud.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...m.fraunhofer.de>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fan Yong <yong.fan@...mcloud.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...hat.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] [RESEND] 32/64 bit llseek hashes (v5)
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 04:27:15AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2012-01-09, at 6:21 AM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> > With the ext3/ext4 directory index implementation hashes are used to specify
> > offsets for llseek(). For compatibility with NFSv2 and 32-bit user space
> > on 64-bit systems (kernel space) ext3/ext4 currently only return 32-bit
> > hashes and therefore the probability of hash collisions for larger directories
> > is rather high. As recently reported on the NFS mailing list that theoretical
> > problem also happens on real systems:
> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.nfs/40863
> >
> > The following series adds two new f_mode flags to tell ext4
> > to use 32-bit or 64-bit hash values for llseek() calls.
> > These flags can then used by network file systems, such as NFS, to
> > request 32-bit or 64-bit offsets (hashes).
>
> Ted, it would be great if these patches could land. We hit issues like
> this previously as well, which is why we started this patch series in the
> first place.
Yes, this needs to be fixed--is there anything in particular holding up
these patches?
--b.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists