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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:52:05 -0700
From:	Zach Brown <>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <>,
	Bernd Schubert <>,
	Anand Avati <>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <>,,,
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] regressions due to 64-bit ext4 directory cookies

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:07:44AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 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?

They're testing a work-around:,4711

I'm not sure if they've decided that they're going to go with it, or

- z
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