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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:52:12 -0500
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <>
To:	Andreas Dilger <>
Cc:	Trond Myklebust <>,
	Alexandre Ratchov <>,,
Subject: Re: rfc: [patch] change attribute for ext3

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 06:24:28PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2006  14:11 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > I would really have preferred a full-blown 64-bit counter as per
> > RFC3530, but I suppose we could always combine this change attribute
> > with the high word from ctime in order to make up the NFSv4 change
> > attribute. That should keep us safe until someone develops a ramdisk
> > with < 1 nsecond access time.
> Trond, can you please elaborate on the need for a 64-bit version counter
> for NFSv4?

I'm not Trond, but....

> What kind of requirements does NFSv4 place on the version?  Monotonic is
> probably a good bet.

The only requirement is that it be unique (assuming a file is never
modified 2^64 times).  Clients can't compare them except for equality.

> Does it need to be global for the filesystem


> or is a per-inode version sufficient?


> What functionality of NFSv4 needs the version?

Clients use it to revalidate their caches.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists