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  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:	Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:48:27 -0500
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <>
To:	Andreas Dilger <>
Cc:	Theodore Ts'o <>,,
	Bernd Schubert <>,
	ext4 development <>,
	linux-fsdevel Devel <>,
	Fan Yong <>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <>,
	Eric Sandeen <>
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:
> >
> > 
> > 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?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists