linux-ext4 - RFC: remove CONFIG_EXT4_FS

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 05 Dec 2012 17:35:05 -0500
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
cc:	Tao Ma <tm@....ma>
Subject: RFC: remove CONFIG_EXT4_FS_XATTR

The number of build warnings that were generated with the inline data
patch makes me think that perhaps we should just remove
CONFIG_EXT4_FS_XATTR.  Turning off CONFIG_EXT4_FS_XATTR causes a net
decrease in the ext4 file system by 27k (about 7.3% if ext4 is built as
a module; the entire compiled kernel's text+data size for my
all-in-one-no-modules-for-kvm-testing is 19 megabytes).

Another advantage of making this change is with the inline data option,
if you turn off CONFIG_EXT4_FS_XATTR, it will still allow a file system
with inline_data to be mounted, but then attempts to read small files or
small directories will end up returning EOPNOTSUPP, which will be
surprising to end users in a very serious way.  (Assuming it works at
all; I haven't tested to make sure it fails cleanly, and I'm not sure
Tao has tested that case either; so easing our test matrix is another
reason why removing this config option would be helpful.)

Does anyone have any objections or other reasons why this would be a bad
idea?

                                                - Ted

--
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