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 00:33:35 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
CC:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] new stat*fs-like syscall?

On 06/25/2010 12:01 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> So is "frsize" supposed to be the optimal block size, or what?
> f_bsize AFAIKS should be filesystem allocation block size because
> apparently some programs require it to calculate size of file on
> disk.
>
> If we can't change existing suboptimal legacy things, then let's
> introduce new APIs that do the right thing. Apps that care will
> eventually start using eg. a new syscall.
>
>>
>>> - statvfs(2) lacks f_type.
>>>
>>> Is there anything more we should add here? Samba wants a capabilities
>>> field, with things like sparse files, quotas, compression, encryption,
>>> case preserving/sensitive.
>>
>> It wouldn't be a bad idea, but then you could get into issues of what exactly the above flags mean.  That said, I think it is better to have broad categories of features that may be slightly ill-defined than having nothing at all.
>
> Yes it would be tricky. I don't want to add features that will just
> be useless or go unused, but I don't want to change the syscall API
> just to add f_flags, without looking at other possibilities.


It would be nice to separate capabilities and fixed parameters (block 
size) from statistics which change frequently (free space).

And are capabilities really suited to a C struct, at all?  That seems 
more suited to a key/value type interface, a la NFSv4 attributes.

	Jeff



--
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/