[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Scary bugs - quota:bug47718

On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, Dr. Peter Cherriman wrote:
>>Package: quota (debian/main).
>>Maintainer: Heiko Schlittermann <heiko@lotte.sax.de>
>>[HELP] Mail to maintainer bounced.
>>  41753 quota: repquota and quotacheck segfault
>>  47222 quota: edquota - confusing
>>  47718 edquota will not allow soft or hard limits above 4194303 blocks
>> Is 47718 critical?  4194303 blocks is one K less than 4G.  As on 32bit
>> platforms we can currently only support 2G files (actually 1 byte less than
>> 2G) does it matter that we can only set a quota of 4G?
>> For 64bit platforms it is an issue, but I think that there are more
>> significant 64bit issues with the quota system than that.
>Bug number 47718:
>The limit maybe 4G, but most computers have far bigger harddisk now, and it 
>only needs a few large files, to exceed the 4G limit, especially if it is a 

It needs at least two large files to get close to the limit.

>group quota. This bug is very annoying since it is difficult to run a group 
>quota on my systems.

You are right.  I had not previously considered group limits.

>There is a bug fix for this problem which was reported in another bug report 
>number 39249 in July 1999, which I mentioned in a bug report update. I have 
>noticed that the bug has been marked as "fixed" yesterday.
>However a new version of the quota package, does not seem to have been 
>uploaded. So how can a bug-report be marked as "fixed" if it isn't. I'd 
>understand if it severity was de-classified to a lower severity.

I agree.  I still think that it should not be regarded as release-critical
even when we consider the group limit.  The reason it's not so critical in my
opinion is that it doesn't lose data or have any great security problems
(apart from potentially opening you to a file-based DOS attack because you
can't limit disk usage effectively).

Confucius wrote: To be fond of knowledge is better than simply acquiring
it, and to take delight in it is far better than simply being fond of it.

Reply to: