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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1405051614320.2223@localhost.localdomain> Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 16:17:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mke2fs: print extra information about existing ext2/3/4 file systems On Mon, 5 May 2014, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 10:04:01 -0400 > From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> > To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> > Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mke2fs: print extra information about existing > ext2/3/4 file systems > > On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 03:45:17PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > > > > Now I am actually confused, sorry. Which patches do I need to get this > > context? I do not see this in the next branch. > > These are based on the mke2fs patches I had sent earlier. Sorry, I > haven't updated the maint branch in a while. > > The basic idea behinid these patches is that we now get a bit more > context with the warning message for ext2/3/4 file systems: > > % ./misc/mke2fs -t ext4 /dev/heap/media > mke2fs 1.42.9 (4-Feb-2014) > /dev/heap/media contains a ext4 file system labelled 'media' > last mounted on /media on Mon May 5 08:59:53 2014 > Proceed anyway? (y,n) > > I have modified those earlier patches in response to your earlier > feedback; we no longer use the 5 second delay by default --- but we > skip doing the check at all if either stdin or stdout is not a tty. > This saves us in the situation where there is some script which does > somethign like this: > > mke2fs -t ext4 /dev/sdc3 > /tmp/mke2fs.out > > Basically, we will only ask the user for confirmation when we are > certain a user can see both the question and be able to type a > response. It's possible we could still get confused by someone > running mke2fs under a chat/expect script, but that seems like an > acceptable risk. Ok, that makes sense, thanks. -Lukas > > > - Ted >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists