-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:53:43 -0500
Josh Carroll josh.carr...@gmail.com mentioned:
Ok, I describe my concern once more. I do not object against the checking
of the inode size. But, if inode size is changed, then some data is added
to the inode,
FYI:The ext2 IFS driver for Windows v1.11a also appears to have the
inode size issue:
http://www.fs-driver.org/
I was not able to mount an ext2 filesystem with 256 byte inode size
using this driver. Its installer will see that the filesystem exists,
that it's ext2, but whenever you try
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 07:15:05AM +, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Hi,
The inode size for the ext3 filesystem which Gentoo created for my last
install defaulted to 256 bytes, so I got bit by this problem.
I can't speak for the write path. but the read path looks just fine to
me, and the
Kostik Belousov wrote:
...
Bruce, feel free to commit the patch.
I do not want to spend time on ext2 in any form, and due to our (only
partly jokingly) rule of the last committer is the owner, I do not
want to analyze ext2 bug reports after.
Yes, development resource is limited here
Could you please point me to your patch and an explanation on how to apply it
and test it?
You can grab the patch here:
http://pflog.net/~floyd/ext2fs.diff
To apply it:
cd /usr/src/sys/gnu/fs
patch /path/to/ext2fs.diff
cd /usr/src/sys/modules/ext2fs
make clean make
kldload ./ext2fs.ko
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 8:53:43 pm Josh Carroll wrote:
Ok, I describe my concern once more. I do not object against the checking
of the inode size. But, if inode size is changed, then some data is added
to the inode, that could (and usually does, otherwise why extend it ?)
change
Ok, I describe my concern once more. I do not object against the checking
of the inode size. But, if inode size is changed, then some data is added
to the inode, that could (and usually does, otherwise why extend it ?)
change intrerpetation of the inode. Thus, we need a verification of the
Hi,
The inode size for the ext3 filesystem which Gentoo created for my last
install defaulted to 256 bytes, so I got bit by this problem.
I can't speak for the write path. but the read path looks just fine to
me, and the patch should go in ASAP.
Josh Carroll wrote:
Ok, I describe my
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 02:29:57PM -0500, Josh Carroll wrote:
A while back, I submitted a patch for PR kern/124621, which allows the
mounting of an ext2(3) filesystem created with an inode size other
than 128. The e2fsprogs' default is now 256, so file systems created
on newer Linux
I already expressed my opinion on
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2008-September/025933.html
Sorry, I do not subscribe to hackers@ so I did not see that message. So what do
you recommend is done to further test it? I tested simple things like copies,
writes, deletes, etc on
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 09:17:06AM -0500, Josh Carroll wrote:
I already expressed my opinion on
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2008-September/025933.html
Sorry, I do not subscribe to hackers@ so I did not see that message.
So what do you recommend is done to further
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 09:57:18AM -0500, Josh Carroll wrote:
I do not suggest testing. I suggest understand what inode metadata is stored
in the added 128 bytes and evaluate whether this information can be ignored
without dangerous consequences for filesystem consistency or user data.
I do not suggest testing. I suggest understand what inode metadata is stored
in the added 128 bytes and evaluate whether this information can be ignored
without dangerous consequences for filesystem consistency or user data.
Well, to be clear I didn't just double the size of the inode table.
Ok, I describe my concern once more. I do not object against the checking
of the inode size. But, if inode size is changed, then some data is added
to the inode, that could (and usually does, otherwise why extend it ?)
change intrerpetation of the inode. Thus, we need a verification of the
On 2008-11-25 10:11:09AM -0500, Josh Carroll wrote:
Ok, I describe my concern once more. I do not object against the checking
of the inode size. But, if inode size is changed, then some data is added
to the inode, that could (and usually does, otherwise why extend it ?)
change
A while back, I submitted a patch for PR kern/124621, which allows the
mounting of an ext2(3) filesystem created with an inode size other
than 128. The e2fsprogs' default is now 256, so file systems created
on newer Linux distributions or with the port will not be mountable.
I was hopeful this
16 matches
Mail list logo
