linux-ext4 - Re: xfstest-bld generic/018 fails due to e4defrag issue

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: <20140410135637.GC15925@thunk.org>
Date:	Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:56:37 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	jon ernst <jonernst07@...il.com>
Cc:	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: xfstest-bld generic/018 fails due to e4defrag issue

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:13:49AM -0400, jon ernst wrote:
> 
> Because bigalloc requires cluster-aware bitfield operations, which
> means we need EXT2_FLAG_64BITS.
> I see e2image.c creates image always with EXT2_FLAG_64BITS flag. It is
> safe to do same thing for e4defrag in my opinion. Please correct me if
> I am wrong.

Um.... I *think* so.  e4defrag is one of the less well
tested/maintained parts of e2fsprogs, as well as the kernel-side code
which supports e4defrag.  I can't think of any reason why there would
be any 32-bit dependencies in the kernel side code, although someone
should probably do a quick audit of the e4defrag code to make sure
it's not using blk_t where it should be using blk64_t, or have other
32-bit dependencies.

					- 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