| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <46026A92.4020106@slax.org> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:37:54 +0100 From: Tomas M <tomas@...x.org> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: max_loop limit > 255 loop devices are insufficient? What kind of scenario do you have > in mind? > > Thank you very much for replying. In 1981, Bill Gates said that 64KB of memory is enough for everybody. And you know how much RAM do you have right now. :) Every limit is bad. The limit of 255 loop devices has been introduced years ago, in the times when minor device number has been limited by 255. Nowadays, there is no such limitation. There are many possible/reasonable uses for more than 255 loop devices. For example CD/ISO server. My project, Slax Linux live, is based on modular approach where many parts of the root filesystem are stored separately in compressed read-only loop files, and are mounted and unioned to a single root by using union fs (aufs). The question is not "Why do we need more than 255 loops?". The question should be "Why do we need the hardcoded 255-limit in kernel while there is no reason for it at all?" My patch simply removes the hardcoded limitation. Tomas M slax.org - 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