Dangerout FAT32 filesystem bug

Dangerout FAT32 filesystem bug

[Jens Benecke]

Hi,

I didn't find anything in the changelog for 2.6.[01] and 2.4.2[2345]:

has the FAT32 FS bug mentioned (and successfully fixed/patched) in 

http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2003/Dec/1127.html

been included in the mainstream kernel? It destroys data on big FAT32
partitions, which is very critical for people with big external harddisks
trying to exchange data between Linux and Windows systems.


-- 
Jens Benecke

Re: Dangerout FAT32 filesystem bug

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Jens Benecke <jens-usenet@spamfreemail.de> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> I didn't find anything in the changelog for 2.6.[01] and 2.4.2[2345]:
> 
> has the FAT32 FS bug mentioned (and successfully fixed/patched) in 
> 
> http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2003/Dec/1127.html
> 
> been included in the mainstream kernel? It destroys data on big FAT32
> partitions, which is very critical for people with big external harddisks
> trying to exchange data between Linux and Windows systems.

2.6 was already fixed several months ago.

For 2.4, patch submited.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>

Re: Dangerout FAT32 filesystem bug

[Jens Benecke]

OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:

> Jens Benecke <jens-usenet@spamfreemail.de> writes:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I didn't find anything in the changelog for 2.6.[01] and 2.4.2[2345]:
>> has the FAT32 FS bug mentioned (and successfully fixed/patched) in
 
> 2.6 was already fixed several months ago.
> For 2.4, patch submited.

That's very strange, as I couldn't find any mention of it in the 2.6
changelogs since Dec 05 (when it was first submitted to lkml).

OK, maybe I didn't look hard enough.

Thanks. :)

-- 
Jens Benecke

Re: Dangerout FAT32 filesystem bug

[Erik Andersen]

On Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 08:39:50PM +0100, Jens Benecke wrote:
> OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> 
> > Jens Benecke <jens-usenet@spamfreemail.de> writes:
> > 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> I didn't find anything in the changelog for 2.6.[01] and 2.4.2[2345]:
> >> has the FAT32 FS bug mentioned (and successfully fixed/patched) in
>  
> > 2.6 was already fixed several months ago.
> > For 2.4, patch submited.
> 
> That's very strange, as I couldn't find any mention of it in the 2.6
> changelogs since Dec 05 (when it was first submitted to lkml).
> 
> OK, maybe I didn't look hard enough.
> 
> Thanks. :)

It has been in 2.6 for quite some time now,

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--