linux-ext4 - Re: [Gluster-devel] 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]

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