linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] Ext4: Make file creation time, i_version and i

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]

Message-ID: <8831.1277753903@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:38:23 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, smfrench@...il.com,
	jlayton@...hat.com, mcao@...ibm.com,
	aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, sjayaraman@...e.de,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ext4: Make file creation time, i_version and i_generation available by xattrs

Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> wrote:

> - I'd prefer calling these "file.generation" and "file.version".
>   I don't think there is value in the "i_" prefix adds anything,
>   and it seems more like an internal detail to me

That's reasonable.

> - why not expose the ".version" field for regular files?  It seems
>   that all of them are applicable for all file types.

Because Ext4 doesn't support it for anything other than directories.

> - it would be good to not introduce a new xattr namespace, since
>   tools like tar (even the RHEL-patched one) will not backup and
>   restore these namespaces.  Using "trusted." would allow them to
>   be backed up and restored using existing xattr-patched GNU tar
>   by root, but wouldn't allow them to be modified by regular users.
>   I think this is important for proper backup/restore of a filesystem,
>   but can have correctness implications and shouldn't be accessible
>   to regular users.

Does backing them up make sense, though?  They are filesystem structural
attributes.  Can you restore the inode number, for example?  If not, then you
can't restore i_generation either.  Restoring i_version might make sense, but
what if it winds i_version backwards whilst maintaining i_ino and i_generation,
that means there'll be a time in the future where the three values are once
again what might have been already published - and may already be in someone's
persistent cache.

> > file.crtime=0x53ba244c000000000000000000000000
> 
> Is this a binary (host-endian) struct timespec?

Yes.  That might not be the best representation, however.  It could also be,
say "<decimal-secs>.<decimal-nsecs>", eg: "1234.000000567".

> > file.i_generation=0x0000000000000000
> 
> This seems odd, i_generation should never be zero, AFAIK.

That might be because it's the root directory, and so cannot be replaced.

David
--
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