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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:29:50 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 bug fixes for 3.18 > And your point about >16TB filesystems is completely buggy. That was > *my* point. Most people - even on 64-bit - do *not* have 16TB > filesystems, and the high 32 bits are zero or contain very very little > information (ie even on a multi-terabyte filesystem, it's one or two > bits worth of information). So hash_32() is not only much more > reasonable on a 32-bit machine, the end result is basically as good > for 99.999% of all uses. Exactly *because* people don't have those big > filesystems. I agree; that's why I suggested using hash_32() if the number of blocks in the file system is less than 2**32. I did look at hash_u64 and didn't think it was that bad, but that's probably because compared to crypto checksums it's positively fast, and it's really easy to get into the bad habit of thinking that all the world's an x86_64. :-) - Ted -- 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