linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/7] cramfs: create unique inode numbers

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:	Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:24:51 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	hch@....de
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/7] cramfs: create unique inode numbers

On Sunday 01 June 2008, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 17:20:15 +0200, arnd@...db.de wrote:
> > 
> > This changes the inode number in cramfs to be based on
> > the location of the dentry instead of the file, in order
> > to make inodes unique.
> 
> Couldn't this cause problems for NFS?  The same inode no longer has a
> stable inode number across reboots.  Basing on dentry location can also
> be an information leak and cause problems on 64bit machines with old
> userspace.

Sorry if I was not clear with this: I meant dentry location on disk,
not in memory. So the inode number is still stable across reboots and
does not leak data, it is just different from before.

> We could keep the original approach and use a static counter otherwise.
> Something roughly like this:

One thing I like about my 2/7 patch is that it actually reduces the amount
of code in the file system, while your solution would increase it, with
otherwise identical behaviour.

	Arnd <><
--
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/