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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:52:32 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <>
To:     Andreas Dilger <>
Cc:     Jan Kara <>, Ted Tso <>,
        Ext4 Developers List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tune2fs: Update overhead when toggling journal feature

On Mon 14-06-21 15:38:57, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 2021, at 3:28 PM, Jan Kara <> wrote:
> > 
> > When adding or removing journal from a filesystem, we also need to add /
> > remove journal blocks from overhead stored in the superblock.  Otherwise
> > total number of blocks in the filesystem as reported by statfs(2) need
> > not match reality and could lead to odd results like negative number of
> > used blocks reported by df(1).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <>
> You could add:
> Fixes: 9046b4dfd0ce ("mke2fs: set overhead in super block")
> and
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <>


> That also makes me wonder if resize2fs also needs to recalculate or
> invalidate the s_overhead_clusters field when adding new block groups.
> It *looks* like that is done correctly in adjust_fs_info() already?

Yes. From a quick look I had when doing this tune2fs patch I've noticed
that adjust_fs_info() just zeros s_overhead_clusters which makes the kernel
compute the overhead instead...


Jan Kara <>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists