linux-kernel - Re: [NFS] What's slated for inclusion in 2.6.24-rc1 from the NFS client git tree...

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:	Thu, 4 Oct 2007 18:43:04 +0200
From:	Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>
To:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Cc:	Peter Staubach <staubach@...hat.com>, nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [NFS] What's slated for inclusion in 2.6.24-rc1 from the NFS
 client git tree...

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:00:50 -0400
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 08:52 +0200, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:41:16 -0400
> > Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > We also have the 64-bit inode support from RedHat/Peter Staubach.
> > > 
> > 
> > As has been pointed[1] out[2], this will cause regressions for
> > non-LFS applications (of which there are still lots and lots). This
> > change should be in feature-removal (the "feature" being removed is
> > legacy support for non-LFS applications using NFS servers that make
> > full use of the protocol) and preferably accompanied with
> > appropriate user space changes (e.g. compatibility option in glibc).
> > 
> > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241348
> > [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=118701088726477&w=2
> > 
> > Rgds
> 
> How about a boot/module parameter to turn it on or off?
> 

That would be perfect. It can even be in non-legacy mode by default,
just as long as you can go back to the old behaviour when/if you run
into a non-LFS application.

> I don't see any point in having a sysctl for something like this:
> either you have legacy applications or you don't. It is not something
> that you switch off as you go off to lunch.
> A compile parameter, OTOH, would be too restrictive since it would
> force distros to choose just one behaviour (which would mean they
> would have to choose the most conservative).
> 

Agreed.

Rgds
-- 
     -- Pierre Ossman

  Linux kernel, MMC maintainer        http://www.kernel.org
  PulseAudio, core developer          http://pulseaudio.org
  rdesktop, core developer          http://www.rdesktop.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/