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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51E412F0.3040206@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:19:12 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: fallocated blocks past EOF & past parent node range OK?

I'm sorry I missed the conversation earlier this morning, but ewhitney let me know that the consensus was that for fallocated blocks past EOF, it's fine to have those blocks live outside the parent node's range in the extent tree.

This seems quite strange to me, and unexpected.

What is the rationale for this?  Why would these past-EOF extents look unique in the extent tree, and not be covered by the parent node?

Thanks,
-Eric
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ