linux-ext4 - [Bug 195561] Suspicious persistent EXT4-fs error: ext4_validate_block_bitmap:395: [Proc] bg 17: block 557056: invalid block bitmap

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]

Date:   Sun, 14 May 2017 14:56:19 +0000
From:   bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
To:     linux-ext4@...nel.org
Subject: [Bug 195561] Suspicious persistent EXT4-fs error:
 ext4_validate_block_bitmap:395: [Proc] bg 17: block 557056: invalid block
 bitmap

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=195561

--- Comment #33 from Theodore Tso (tytso@....edu) ---
Well, the commit seems to imply that it's only for 32-bit platforms.   I am not
an expert on make_ext4fs, and I don't have the AOSP sources on my laptop, so
it's not something I can easily investigate at the moment.  But it would
explain a lot of things; the Android team at the time would have been only
focusing on 64-bit devices, and while e2fsck and mke2fs in e2fsprogs has plenty
of regression tests, and I *do* run them on 32-bit platforms from time to time
for e2fsprogs, make_ext4fs.... not so much.   (As far as I know it has no
regression tests.)

Which brings me to my next question I'm asking out of curiosity.   Why, in
2017, are you trying to build 32-bit x86?    Is it just to try to save RAM?  
Are you trying to selflessly try to find 32-bit bugs when most device
manufacturers are focusing on 64-bit architectures?   :-)

(Don't get me wrong; I do KVM kernel testing for ext4 using a 32-bit x86
platform partially because it's more RAM economical, and because as an upstream
developer I am interesting in sanity checking to make sure we haven't
introduced any 32-bit regressions.   So there are good reasons to do it, but
for me I'm primarily *looking* to find problems --- in other words, I'm
knowingly asking for it.  :-)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.