| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:49:34 -0500 From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, btrfs-devel@....oracle.com Subject: Re: BTRFS partition usage... On Tuesday 12 February 2008, David Miller wrote: > From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:21:39 -0800 (PST) > > > Filesystems like ext2 put their superblock 1 block into the partition > > in order to avoid overwriting disk labels and other uglies. UFS does > > this too, as do several others. One of the few exceptions I've been > > able to find is XFS. > > > > This is a real issue on sparc where the default sun disk labels > > created use an initial partition where block zero aliases the disk > > label. It took me a few iterations before I figured out why every > > btrfs make would zero out my disk label :-/ > > Actually it seems this is only a problem with mkfs.btrfs, it clears > out the first 64 4K chunks of the disk for whatever reason. It is a good idea to remove supers from other filesystems. I also need to add zeroing at the end of the device as well. Looks like I misread the e2fs zeroing code. It zeros the whole external log device, and I assumed it also zero'd out the start of the main FS. So, if Btrfs starts zeroing at 1k, will that be acceptable for you? -chris -- 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