linux-kernel - Re: Boot failure with ext2 and initrds

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <455A32FC.4000409@mbligh.org>
Date:	Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:19:56 -0800
From:	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...igh.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Boot failure with ext2 and initrds

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> The below might help.
> 
> Indeed it does (with Martin's E2FSBLK warning fix),
> seems to be running well on all machines now.
> 
> (Of course, my ext2_fsblk_t ext2_new_blocks() notion did not pan out,
> for same reason as the original: that ret_block was expected signed.)

Whilst I've got all the smart people looking at this ...

/*max window size: 1024(direct blocks) + 3([t,d]indirect blocks) */
#define EXT2_MAX_RESERVE_BLOCKS         1027

Is that wrong? If it's meaning one triple, one double, and one single
indirect block, surely it can span a boundary, so we need (potentially)
two of each?

M.
-
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/