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: <20130328175205.GD16651@lenny.home.zabbo.net> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:52:05 -0700 From: Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com> To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, 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 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: http://review.gluster.org/#change,4711 I'm not sure if they've decided that they're going to go with it, or not. - z -- 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