linux-ext4 - Re: regressions due to 64-bit ext4 directory cookies

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]

Date:	Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:00:03 -0500
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, sandeen@...hat.com,
	Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...m.fraunhofer.de>,
	gluster-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: regressions due to 64-bit ext4 directory cookies

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 03:28:41PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> 06effdbb49af5f6c "nfsd: vfs_llseek() with 32 or 64 bit offsets (hashes)"
> and previous patches solved problems with hash collisions in large
> directories by using 64- instead of 32- bit directory hashes in some
> cases.  But it caused problems for users who assume directory offsets
> are "small".  Two cases we've run across:
> 
> 	- older NFS clients: 64-bit cookies cause applications on many
> 	  older clients to fail.

Is there a list of clients (and version numbers) which are having
problems?

> A "no_64bit_cookies" export option would provide a workaround for NFS 
> servers with older NFS clients, but not for applications like gluster.

Why isn't it sufficient for gluster?  Are they doing something
horrible such as assuming that telldir() cookies accessed from
userspace are identical to NFS cookies?  Or is it some other horrible
abstraction violation?

						- Ted
--
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