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: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:56:39 +0100 (CET) From: Grzegorz Kulewski <kangur@...com.net> To: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Cc: dean gaudet <dean@...tic.org>, Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: New filesystem for Linux On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Mikulas Patocka wrote: >> > If it overflows, it increases crash count instead. So really you have >> > 2^47 >> > transactions or 65536 crashes and 2^31 transactions between each crash. >> >> it seems to me that you only need to be able to represent a range of the >> most recent 65536 crashes... and could have an online process which goes >> about "refreshing" old objects to move them forward to the most recent >> crash state. as long as you know the minimm on-disk crash count you can >> use it as an offset. > > After 65536 crashes you have to run spadfsck --reset-crash-counts. Maybe I > add that functionality to kernel driver too, so that it will be formally > corect. Is there any reason you can not make these fields 64 or even 128 bits in size to increase these "limits" dramatically? Thanks, Grzegorz Kulewski - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists