linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC] ext3 freeze feature ver 0.2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:39:02 -0800
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Takashi Sato <t-sato@...jp.nec.com>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] ext3 freeze feature ver 0.2

Takashi Sato wrote:

> o Elevate XFS ioctl numbers (XFS_IOC_FREEZE and XFS_IOC_THAW) to the VFS
>   As Andreas Dilger and Christoph Hellwig advised me, I have elevated
>   them to include/linux/fs.h as below.
>     #define FIFREEZE        _IOWR('X', 119, int)
> 　  #define FITHAW          _IOWR('X', 120, int)
>   The ioctl numbers used by XFS applications don't need to be changed.
>   But my following ioctl for the freeze needs the parameter
>   as the timeout period.  So if XFS applications don't want the timeout
>   feature as the current implementation, the parameter needs to be
>   changed 1 (level?) into 0.

So, existing xfs applications calling the xfs ioctl now will behave
differently, right?  We can only keep the same ioctl number if the
calling semantics are the same.  Keeping the same number but changing
the semantics is harmful, IMHO....

-Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html