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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:20:36 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <>
To:	Martin Bligh <>
cc:	Mel Gorman <>, Andrew Morton <>,
Subject: Re: Boot failure with ext2 and initrds

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Martin Bligh wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > I expect you'll find it's
> > ext2-reservations-bring-ext2-reservations-code-in-line-with-latest-ext3.patch
> > which gets stuck in a loop there for me too: back it out and all seems fine.
> > 
> > It's not obvious which part of the patch is to blame: mostly it's
> > cleanup, but a few variables do change size: I'm currently narrowing
> > down to where a fix is needed.
> Humpf. that was meant to be one of those "so obvious I can't screw it
> up" patches.

Never underestimate yourself, Martin ;)

> typedef unsigned long ext2_fsblk_t;
> typedef int ext2_grpblk_t;
> in ext2_alloc_blocks we do change from "unsigned long long" to
> "unsigned long" for new_blocks[], but akpm thinks that was garbage
> before (same for ext2_alloc_branch's current_block)

Yes, I agree, those particular changes looked just fine,
and indeed they're not to blame.

> The ext2_grpblk_t ones all look innocuous.

Yes, those all looked like no-ops.  The guilty party is ext2_new_blocks:
i386, x86_64 and ppc64 are now happily building on ext2s with this patch
below (I've been lazy, could have deleted your "E2FSBLK" addition too).

But I haven't attempted to correlate it with the loops seen (with OOMs
too on the x86_64, no idea why, but they've likewise melted away with
this patch).  And I'm dubious whether it's the _right_ fix: the whole
mess of ints, unsigned longs and __u32s looks tricky to me, not some-
thing to sort out in a hurry - I'm only working with small filesystems
here (looped on a tmpfs file).  (And if ret_block really should be an
ext2_fsblk_t there, shouldn't ext2_new_blocks return an ext2_fsblk_t
rather than an int?)

I see Andrew's sent me an alternative patch to try, I'll give that
a whirl now; and see if just making ext2_new_blocks return an
ext2_fsblk_t would do it too.


--- 2.6.19-rc5-mm2/fs/ext2/balloc.c	2006-11-14 12:10:07.000000000 +0000
+++ linux/fs/ext2/balloc.c	2006-11-14 19:34:06.000000000 +0000
@@ -1155,7 +1155,7 @@ int ext2_new_blocks(struct inode *inode,
 	struct buffer_head *gdp_bh;
 	int group_no;
 	int goal_group;
-	ext2_fsblk_t ret_block;		/* filesyetem-wide allocated block */
+	int ret_block;			/* filesystem-wide allocated block */
 	int bgi;			/* blockgroup iteration index */
 	int target_block;
 	int performed_allocation = 0;
@@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@ allocated:
 	if (ret_block + num - 1 >= le32_to_cpu(es->s_blocks_count)) {
 		ext2_error(sb, "ext2_new_blocks",
-			    "block("E2FSBLK") >= blocks count(%d) - "
+			    "block(%d) >= blocks count(%d) - "
 			    "block_group = %d, es == %p ", ret_block,
 			le32_to_cpu(es->s_blocks_count), group_no, es);
 		goto out;
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists