linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] new stat*fs-like syscall?

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:	Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:50:18 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	drepper@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] new stat*fs-like syscall?

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 04:48:20PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> > Wasn't the point that /proc/self/mounts (and presumably
> > /proc/self/mountinfo) isn't scalable and we wanted a syscall to query
> > it efficiently (and racelessly)?
> 
> The question was how to support statvfs() efficiently, and the only
> thing missing there is f_flags which can easily be added to the
> existing statfs() syscall.
> 
> A separate mount_info() syscall might possibly be useful, but that's
> another story.

Native statvfs() support is my motivation, but I am thinking that if
we are going to introduce a new syscall (or version rev the statfs
syscall somehow), then we should think hard about what else we can do.

More superblock info should be possible, more detailed info like like
related mounts will be costlier, so that may be better off as a
different syscall.

--
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/