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" <>
To:     Andreas Dilger <>
Cc:     Ext4 Developers List <>,
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 <> 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.


						- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists