Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:11:09 -0500 From: "Josh Carroll" <josh.carroll@gmail.com> To: "Kostik Belousov" <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ext2 inode size patch - RE: PR kern/124621 Message-ID: <8cb6106e0811250711x39775d2asd601e8a53eaaeac7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20081125150342.GL2042@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <8cb6106e0811241129o642dcf28re4ae177c8ccbaa25@mail.gmail.com> <20081125140601.GH2042@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <8cb6106e0811250617q5fffb41exe20dfb8314fc4a9d@mail.gmail.com> <20081125142827.GI2042@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <8cb6106e0811250657q6fdf08b0x1e94f35fd0a7ed4f@mail.gmail.com> <20081125150342.GL2042@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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 > fact that simply ignoring added fields does not damage filesystem or > cause user data corruption. Verification != testing. Ok, I see your point. I will do some more research into the ext2 inode structure on disk and see what happens when inode size > 128. > > Until we make this work, patch cannot go into the tree. > Understood, thanks for your attention. Regards, Josh
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8cb6106e0811250711x39775d2asd601e8a53eaaeac7>