| 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: <20140728074839.GC404@birch.djwong.org> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 00:48:39 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com> To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] dumpe2fs: add switch to disable checksum verification On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 04:58:08PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:34:16PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Add a -n switch to turn off checksum verification. > > Instead of adding a -n flag, I wonder if the better thing to do is if > the various functions that might return a checksum error error out, we > print a warning message indicating checksum failure occured, and then > retry with EXT2_FLAG_IGNORE_CSUM_ERRORS. That is, either retry the > ext2fs_open with the IGNORE_CSUM_ERRORS, or if the file system is > already open, or in EXT2_FLAG_IGNORE_CSUM_ERRORS into fs->flags and > then retry the ext2fs_read_bitmaps() or whatever. > > What do you think? My reason for this approach is that forcing the user to tack on "-n" makes it less likely that a checksum error will be buried in the output and forgotten. That said I don't have any objection to this approach either. The checksum complaint could be printed at the end. I think the error message should also tell the user to run e2fsck. --D > > - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists