linux-ext4 - Motion to nuke FS_DIRECTIO

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:	Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:06:10 -0500
From:	tytso@....edu
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Motion to nuke FS_DIRECTIO_FL

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:18:47PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> 
> It doesn't seem that ext2/3/4 are using the 0x00100000 value itself,
> but it seems the VFS is using this value for FS_DIRECTIO_FL.  Should
> we reserve this in the ext4 flags also, to avoid collisions?  I'm
> not sure what that flag is for, possibly to force all IO to the file
> to be uncached?

Hmm, absolutely nothing seems to use FS_DIRECTIO_FL; it looks like it
was introduced by GFS2 in commit 128e5eba in 2006 and then dropped in
commit c9f6a6bb in 2008, but we never killed the FS_DIRECTIO_FL flag
itself in include/linux/fs.h.

The summary line for c9f6a6bb is a bit amusing:

    [GFS2] Remove support for unused and pointless flag

Heh.

Sounds like we should just kill it.  Any objections?

					- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html