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 12:30:07 -0800
From:	Martin Bligh <>
To:	Hugh Dickins <>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <>, Andrew Morton <>,
Subject: Re: Boot failure with ext2 and initrds

> Never underestimate yourself, Martin ;)

Thanks ;-)

> 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).

Yup, we started throwing away the error return code ;-(

> 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 was trying to harmonize it with what ext3 code does, but as Andrew
understands this code a thousand times better than I, hopefully it's
all fixed properly ;-)

> 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.

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