linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6 linux-next] fs/affs: make affs exportable

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, 13 Jan 2017 12:39:12 -0500
From:   bfields@...ldses.org (J. Bruce Fields)
To:     Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, neilb@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6 linux-next] fs/affs: make affs exportable

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:53:31AM +0100, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 03 January 2017 at 23:29 Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:30:39PM +0100, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> > > Add standard functions making AFFS work with NFS.
> > >
> > > Functions based on ext4 implementation.
> > > Tested on loop device.
> >
> > How the hell is that supposed to work with cold dcache?  You don't have
> > ->get_parent() there at all...
> >
> > There *IS* a reference to parent directory in those suckers - not the same
> > kind as in normal unix filesystems (".." is not a directory entry there -
> > it's all fake), but it's doable.  be32_to_cpu(AFFS_TAIL(sb, bh)->parent)
> > would be the inumber you need, where bh is the inode block of directory.
> >
> > So it can be done, but not in this form.  NAK for the time being...
> 
> I worked on that function declared optional in
> Documentation/filesystems/nfs/Exporting
> but was unable to test it.

If we're going to reject patches that don't implement get_parent (and I
think we should), then we should replace "optional but strongly
recommended" there by just "mandatory".  Any objections?

--b.