linux-kernel - Re: why UDF have so ugly filesize limit?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070420205235.GN14172@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date:	Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:52:36 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Marat Buharov <marat.buharov@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: why UDF have so ugly filesize limit?

> from fs/udf/super.c:
> in function udf_fill_super
> sb->s_maxbytes = 1<<30; (1 GB)
> 
> Why sb->s_maxbytes is not equal to MAX_LFS_FILESIZE?
  Because UDF had some flaws and user could crash a kernel with larger
filesize. In -mm kernel are patches fixing the flaw and also raising the
limit back to MAX_LFS_FILESIZE.

> So, in include/linux/fs.h written that the filesystems should put that
> (MAX_LFS_FILESIZE) into their s_maxbytes, otherwise bad things can
> happen in VM.
  Bad things can happen only if you set it to more than
MAX_LFS_FILESIZE. With smaller values only users are disappointed ;).

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SuSE CR Labs
-
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/