I have been looking over CAN-2005-3109, better known as
the hfs, hfsplus leak and oops, and I am wondering if the
problem is present in 2.4
I took a look at making a backport, and it seems that
some of the problems are there, but without a deeper inspection
of the code its difficult to tell if the problems manifest or not.
For reference, here is the 2.6 variant of the change:
http://www.kernel.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=945b092011c6af71a0107be96e119c8c08776f3f
I can futher my backport effort and post it for inspection if need be.
--
Horms
On 07 Oct 2005 at 13h10, Horms wrote:
Hi,
> I took a look at making a backport, and it seems that
> some of the problems are there, but without a deeper inspection
> of the code its difficult to tell if the problems manifest or not.
That was easy to get the oops:
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=im_not_hfsplus count=10 #for example
$ mkdir test_dir
$ sudo mount -o loop -t hfsplus ./im_not_hfsplus ./testdir
$ dmesg
--
Colin
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 09:10:05AM +0200, Colin Leroy wrote:
> On 07 Oct 2005 at 13h10, Horms wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I took a look at making a backport, and it seems that
> > some of the problems are there, but without a deeper inspection
> > of the code its difficult to tell if the problems manifest or not.
>
> That was easy to get the oops:
>
> $ dd if=/dev/zero of=im_not_hfsplus count=10 #for example
> $ mkdir test_dir
> $ sudo mount -o loop -t hfsplus ./im_not_hfsplus ./testdir
> $ dmesg
Silly me, I should have thought of that :-)
--
Horms
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 09:10:05AM +0200, Colin Leroy wrote:
> On 07 Oct 2005 at 13h10, Horms wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I took a look at making a backport, and it seems that
> > some of the problems are there, but without a deeper inspection
> > of the code its difficult to tell if the problems manifest or not.
>
> That was easy to get the oops:
>
> $ dd if=/dev/zero of=im_not_hfsplus count=10 #for example
> $ mkdir test_dir
> $ sudo mount -o loop -t hfsplus ./im_not_hfsplus ./testdir
> $ dmesg
After an extended delay I have been able to confirm that the above
commands do not cause 2.4 (Debian's 2.4.27) to do anything unusal.
Mount just reports:
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/loop0,
or too many mounted file systems
And there is nothing exciting in dmsg:
loop: loaded (max 8 devices)
HFS+-fs: unable to find HFS+ superblock
HFS+-fs: unable to find HFS+ superblock
HFS+-fs: unable to find HFS+ superblock
Thus it seems that 2.4 does not suffer from this bug.
--
Horms