Hi!
Thanks for looking at things
Aside from catching checksumming errors, we're not quite ready for
fuzzer style attacks. The code will be hardened for this but it isn't
yet.
Does this mean i should stop trying to break it for now or are you
interested
in
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 07:31:50AM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
* Pavel Machek (pa...@suse.cz) wrote:
Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are 'in
production' and should survive it...
I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of
vfat, udf, msdos,
* Dave Chinner (da...@fromorbit.com) wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 07:31:50AM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
* Pavel Machek (pa...@suse.cz) wrote:
Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are 'in
production' and should survive it...
I regularly (once or twice a week)
Hey Cris,
Chris Mason wrote:
This doesn't quite play nicely with btrfs and should lead to all kinds
of problemsI'm looking into how to disable swapfiles completely.
Please try to support swapfiles. I know their drawbacks and still use
them quite often.
Cheers
Kaspar
--
To unsubscribe
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 07:31 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
Hi,
* Pavel Machek (pa...@suse.cz) wrote:
Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are 'in
production' and should survive it...
I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of
vfat, udf,
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
There are patches to support swap over NFS that might make it safe to
use on btrfs. At any rate, it is a fixable problem.
FreeBSD has been able to run swap over NFS for as long as I can
remember, what is different in
The second is an implementation detail of the linux swap file code. It
expects filesystems don't move blocks around, and takes a mapping of the
blocks in the FS once.
This doesn't work with btrfs because we do move blocks around all the
time.
That's interesting. I have a few questions:
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 13:38 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin npig...@suse.de wrote:
it seems like a nice opt-in thing that can be used where the aliases
are verified and the code is particularly performance critical...
Yes. I think we could use it in the kernel,
On Friday 16 January 2009 16:27:57 Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
+ fprintf (stderr, Coult not open %s\n, filename);
Coult should be Could.
Other than that, the patch seems to fix the segfault issue for me.
thanks,
-Zach
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Hi all,
I searched the archives, and didn't find any answers to my questions, so I
think it's time to ask.
From: http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfs_design#Extent_Block_Groups
Block groups have a flag that indicate if they are preferred for data
or metadata
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 12:54 -0800, ashf...@whisperpc.com wrote:
Hi all,
I searched the archives, and didn't find any answers to my questions, so I
think it's time to ask.
From: http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfs_design#Extent_Block_Groups
Block groups have a flag that
Ingo Molnar wrote:
Hm, GCC uses __restrict__, right?
I'm wondering whether there's any internal tie-up between alias analysis
and the __restrict__ keyword - so if we turn off aliasing optimizations
the __restrict__ keyword's optimizations are turned off as well.
Actually I suspect that
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:20:19PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Tue 2009-01-20 08:28:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:59:44PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
So far the responses from xfs folks have been disappointing, if you are
interested in bugreports i can send
Dmitri Nikulin dniku...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
There are patches to support swap over NFS that might make it safe to
use on btrfs. At any rate, it is a fixable problem.
FreeBSD has been able to run swap over NFS for as
14 matches
Mail list logo
