linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 01/10] fs: common implementation of file type

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:   Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:02:06 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
Cc:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        amir73il@...il.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 01/10] fs: common implementation of file type

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:19:53PM +0100, Phillip Potter wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/file_type.h b/include/linux/file_type.h

Shouldn't this be in include/uapi/linux/fs_types.h?

One of things which must be made crystal clear is these definitions
MUST NOT ever change.  It would break the Userspace ABI, and would
break file systems on-disk format.

It might also be useful to be clear *why* we are making this change in
the first place.  Code refactorization is good from a code maintenance
perspective (either to fix bugs, although this code is pretty
trivial), or to make it easier to make changes in a single central
place (which MUST NOT) happen, or to make the compiled code more
compact.

So some documentation of how much text is actually saved might be
worthwhile.

						- Ted