linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: ext4: correct the document about superblock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 20:37:02 +0800
From:   JunChao Sun <sunjunchao2870@...il.com>
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        tytso@....edu, corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: ext4: correct the document about superblock

Thanks for your suggestions, I will send patchv2.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 5:21 PM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 02:00:16AM -0700, JunChao Sun wrote:
> > Correct some questions like this:
> > s_lastcheck_hi field should be upper 8 bits of the
> > s_lastcheck field, rather than itself.
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/ext4/super.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/ext4/super.rst
> > index 268888522e35..0152888cac29 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/ext4/super.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/ext4/super.rst
> > @@ -456,15 +456,15 @@ The ext4 superblock is laid out as follows in
> >     * - 0x277
> >       - __u8
> >       - s_lastcheck_hi
> > -     - Upper 8 bits of the s_lastcheck_hi field.
> > +     - Upper 8 bits of the s_lastcheck field.
> >     * - 0x278
> >       - __u8
> >       - s_first_error_time_hi
> > -     - Upper 8 bits of the s_first_error_time_hi field.
> > +     - Upper 8 bits of the s_first_error_time field.
> >     * - 0x279
> >       - __u8
> >       - s_last_error_time_hi
> > -     - Upper 8 bits of the s_last_error_time_hi field.
> > +     - Upper 8 bits of the s_last_error_time field.
> >     * - 0x27A
> >       - __u8
> >       - s_pad[2]
>
> The diff looks OK, but the description should be:
> "The description of s_lastcheck_hi, s_first_error_time_hi, and
> s_last_error_time_hi fields refer to themselves, while these means
> referring to upper 8 bits (byte) of corresponding fields (s_lastcheck,
> s_first_error_time, and s_last_error_time). Correct the mistake."
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara