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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:25:19 -0700 From: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca> Subject: Re: "beyond 2038" warnings from loopback mount is noisy > On Sep 4, 2019, at 5:58 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:50:09PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: >> If we don't care to warn about the timestamps that are clamped in >> memory, maybe we could just warn when they are being written out. >> Would something like this be more acceptable? I would also remove the >> warning in ext4.h. I think we don't have to check if the inode is 128 >> bytes here (Please correct me if I am wrong). If this looks ok, I can >> post this. > > That's better, but it's going to be misleading in many cases. The > inode's extra size field is 16 or larger, there will be enough space > for the timestamps, so talking about "timestamps on this inode beyond > 2038" when ext4 is unable to expand it from say, 24 to 32, won't be > true. Certain certain features won't be available, yes --- such as > project-id-based quotas, since there won't be room to store the > project ID. However, it's not going to impact the ability to store > timestamps beyond 2038. The i_extra_isize field is not just about > timestamps! I understand that i_extra_isize is not just about timestamps. It’s evident from EXT4_FITS_IN_INODE(). I think we can check for EXT4_FITS_IN_INODE() here if that will consistently eliminates false positives. But, I hear you. You think this warning is unnecessary. I think there are many file systems and I don’t think anybody would knows in’s and outs of each one. I think if I’m mounting an ext4 fs and it has mixed sizes of inodes, I think I would at least expect a dmesg(with a hint on how to fix it) considering that this filesystem is restricted in more ways than just time. Is this the purpose of the warning you already have?: if (error && (mnt_count != le16_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_mnt_count))) { ext4_warning(inode->i_sb, "Unable to expand inode %lu. Delete some EAs or run e2fsck.", Maybe there should be a warning, but it has nothing to do with just time. Do we already have this? -Deepa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists