linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: update s_overhead_clusters in the superblock during an on-line resize

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:   Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:32:58 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:     Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: update s_overhead_clusters in the superblock
 during an on-line resize

On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 02:47:43PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 10:00 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> > 
> > When doing an online resize, the on-disk superblock on-disk wasn't
> > updated.  This means that when the file system is unmounted and
> > remounted, and the on-disk overhead value is non-zero, this would
> > result in the results of statfs(2) to be incorrect.
> > 
> > This was partially fixed by Commits 10b01ee92df5 ("ext4: fix overhead
> > calculation to account for the reserved gdt blocks"), 85d825dbf489
> > ("ext4: force overhead calculation if the s_overhead_cluster makes no
> > sense"), and eb7054212eac ("ext4: update the cached overhead value in
> > the superblock").
> 
> Would these be better referenced by Fixes: labels?

This commit doesn't actually _fix_ the above-mentioned commits.  They
just didn't fix the bug which is addressed by this one.

Cheers,

						- Ted