linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] Rearrange i_flags to be consistent with FS_IOC

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: <20100705172718.GE25518@thunk.org>
Date:	Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:27:18 -0400
From:	tytso@....edu
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rearrange i_flags to be consistent with FS_IOC_GETFLAGS

On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 10:54:07AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 
> ... a stern comment here about not re-ordering since other fs/*/*
> code depends strongly on this order?

A stern warning is needed there, but it's also needed a few lines
further down in the inode flags section where the FS_*_FL flags are
defined.  These were originally ext2-specific inode flags, and it's
become generalized to a fs-independent set of bit fields, but what's
nasty/important to remember is that these flags are also used as
on-disk flags for ext2/3/4, and so extreme care is needed before new
flags are for FS_IOC_GETFLAGS/FS_IOC_SETFLAGS are allocated....

In fact, I'd argue it's much more strongly needed for the FS_*_FL
flags.

						- 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