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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:55:24 -0500
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...marydata.com>,
        GoffredoBaroncelli <kreijack@...ero.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool
 instead of s64

On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 08:46 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Do you mind just taking it directly? I don't have anything else queued
> > up for this cycle.
> 
> Done.
> 

Thanks...and also many thanks for spotting the original issue. I agree
that this makes it much harder for the callers to get things wrong (and
is probably much more efficient on some arches, as Ted pointed out).

> I wonder if "false for same, true for different" calling convention
> makes much sense, but it matches the old "0 for same" so obviously
> makes for a smaller diff.
> 
> If it ever ends up confusing people, maybe the sense of that function
> should be reversed, and the name changed to something like
> "same_inode_version()" or something.
> 
> But at least for now the situation seems ok to me,
> 

G. Baroncelli suggested changing the name too, so maybe we should just
go ahead and do it. Let me think on what the best approach is and I may
try to send another patch or PR before the end of the merge window.

Cheers,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ