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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130328140744.GA4989@thunk.org> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:07:44 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> Cc: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...m.fraunhofer.de>, Anand Avati <anand.avati@...il.com>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, gluster-devel@...gnu.org Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] regressions due to 64-bit ext4 directory cookies On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:48:14AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > We don't have reached a conclusion so far, do we? What about the > > ioctl approach, but a bit differently? Would it work to specify the > > allowed upper bits for ext4 (for example 16 additional bit) and the > > remaining part for gluster? One of the mails had the calculation > > formula: > > I did throw together an ioctl patch last week, but I think Anand has a new > approach he's trying out which won't require ext4 code changes. I'll let > him reply when he has a moment. :) Any update about whether Gluster can address this without needing the ioctl patch? Or should we push the ioctl patch into ext4 for the next merge window? Thanks, - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists