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 20:18:20 +0100 (CET) From: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> To: Grzegorz Kulewski <kangur@...com.net> 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, Grzegorz Kulewski wrote: > 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? Yes First --- you need a table of 65536 entries. Table of 4G entries would be too large. Second --- it will make structures larger and thus some operations (like scanning directory with find) slower. Mikulas - 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