linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: cmdlinepart: fix the wrong partitions number when truncating occurs

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: <1346228165.2848.432.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:16:05 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
Cc:	Huang Shijie <shijie8@...il.com>, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: cmdlinepart: fix the wrong partitions number
 when truncating occurs

On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 09:06 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> root	100m@0
> kernel	100m@...m
> rootfs	800m@...m (truncated)
> user	0@1g (truncated)
> rest	0@1g

Who would benefit from having those 2 0-sized partitions and how? How
many users/scripts would be confused by this (these 2 ghost partitions
would be visible in /proc/mtd and sysfs)? How much RAM would we spend
for creating sysfs files and directories for these ghost partitions
(note, one sysfs file costs a couple KiB I thing, because 'sizeof
(struct inode)').

While you suggestion is clever, do we really benefit from this?

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)