linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.20-rc6 ramdisk problem

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: <1170288386.29240.234.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:06:26 +0100
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>
Cc:	michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.20-rc6 ramdisk problem

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 17:54 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> I'm not sure if there's an inherent max ramdisk size limit, however I 
> should point out that in most cases, using a tmpfs or ramfs file system 
> is better than old-style ramdisks. Those filesystems return unused 
> memory to the kernel (ramdisks statically allocate the entire space) and 
> also avoid the filesystem overhead of ramdisks (the files are mapped 
> into pagecache directly).

This is not a question of what's better or not. 

Michal stepped into a real life problem:

1. ramdisk gets created in the first place w/o problems
2. formatting the same ramdisk succeeds
3. trying to use it fails

So either #1 or #2 should have failed in the first place. Failing in #3
is definitely a BUG in #1 or #2.

How does your advise help to fix that BUG ? Ignoring it by using
something else ?

	tglx


-
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/