AFAICT, with current code user could pass something like "lzox" and
still get "lzo" compression. Check string lengths to prevent that.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/compression.c b/fs/btrfs/compression.c
index b05b361..1083ab4 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/co
> Linus, what do you think about this particular approach of spin-mutexes?
> It's not the typical spin-mutex i think.
>
> The thing i like most about Peter's patch (compared to most other adaptive
> spinning approaches i've seen, which all sucked as they included various
> ugly heuristics comp
On Tue 2009-01-13 15:43:07, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> * Chris Mason (chris.ma...@oracle.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 15:21 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > when mounting an intentionally corrupted btrfs filesystem i get the
> > > following warning and bug message. The im
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
M +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...
> > > > >
> > > &
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 you some.
> >
> > Sure I am. It would be good if you could s
On Wed 2009-01-21 15:00:42, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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 r
On Sun 2009-02-01 12:40:50, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 05:27:11PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Wed 2009-01-21 15:00:42, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:20:19PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > On Tue 2009-01-20 08:
> > > CONFIG_*_DEBUG means include *debug* code there to help developers,
> > > including adding additional failure tests into the kernel. Besides,
> > > which bit of "don't turn it on unless you are an XFS developer"
> > > don't you understand?
> >
> > Yes, but DEBUG code is normally to help deb
On Thu 2009-02-05 08:02:39, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 10:02 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > > CONFIG_*_DEBUG means include *debug* code there to help developers,
> > > > > including adding additional failure tests into the kernel. Besides,
>
On Thu 2009-02-05 09:19:28, jim owens wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> If you don't want it, don't compile it in. The Kconfig text is very
>>> clear.
>>
>> No, I'd not expect that option to panic systems. That's why I
>> suggested:
11 matches
Mail list logo
