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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 26 Sep 2010 12:08:37 -0700
From:	Brad Boyer <>
To:	Matt Helsley <>
	Theodore Ts'o <>,
	Andreas Dilger <>,
	Jan Kara <>,,, Al Viro <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] [RFC] Create the .relink file_operation

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 02:53:28PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> Not all filesystems will necessarily be able to support relinking an
> orphan inode back into the filesystem. Some offlist feedback suggested
> that instead of overloading .link that relinking should be a separate
> file operation for this reason.
> Since .relink is a superset of .link make the VFS call .relink where
> possible and .link otherwise.
> The next commit will change ext3/4 to enable this operation.

I may have missed something in one of these patches (patch 1 and any
original summary if there was one don't appear in my email), but
what is the point of the new operation? I didn't see any case that
treats one any different than the other. What is disallowed (and how)
for a driver which does not implement .relink but has .link?

	Brad Boyer

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