| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 10:17:34 +0800 From: Tao Ma <tm@....ma> To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> CC: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Protect group inode free counting with group lock. On 05/16/2012 11:49 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/16/12 9:55 AM, Tao Ma wrote: >> On 05/16/2012 09:43 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 5/16/12 3:49 AM, Tao Ma wrote: >>>> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@...bao.com> >>>> >>>> Now when we set the group inode free count, we don't have a proper >>>> group lock so that multiple threads may decrease the inode free >>>> count at the same time. And e2fsck will complain something like: >>> >>> This is only in the ! EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_GDT_CSUM case I guess? >>> That would be worth mentioning in the summary & changelog. >> sure, I will add it in v2. >>> >>> I guess you were testing without that for some reason? >> See my comments below. I found it when running xfstests 269. > > Still not sure how you got a filesystem w/o that feature though, unless > I am forgetting something obvious. Isn't it on by default? oh, I see. Yes, we mkfs the system with the following configurations: mke2fs -O ^resize_inode,^uninit_bg,extent,meta_bg,flex_bg,ext_attr Maybe that's the reason why it has never be met by others before. ;) Thanks Tao -- 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