linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 9 May 2017 06:13:26 +0200
From:   Oleksij Rempel <ore@...gutronix.de>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block



On 05/02/2017 09:37 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Amir,
>
> Am 02.05.2017 um 09:19 schrieb Amir Goldstein:
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
>>> Am 24.04.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>>>>> So, if some flag should be implemented, who should do it? :)
>>>>
>>>> I'll not do it for you. ;)
>>>
>>> Please also see http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149327990608749&w=2
>>>
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Considering the facts that:
>> 1. I proposed the said flag and Al didn't think it was needed [1]
>> 2. ext4 already sets s_uuid without any flag for a long time now
>> 3. A similar patch was queued for v4.12 to set s_uuid for xfs without any flag
>>
>> I think it would be right to take Oleksij's patch as is.
>>
>> FYI, my current work on 'constant inode numbers for overlayfs' requires that
>> underlying filesystem had set a non-zero s_uuid. Not sure if that matters for
>> ubifs+overlayfs users.
>
> If VFS maintainers are fine with that, I'll take it.
> From UBIFS' POV it does not matter much. :-)

Ping to VFS maintainers?