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:	Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:30:30 +0000
From:	"Myklebust, Trond" <>
To:	David Howells <>
CC:	Steve French <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Extended file stat system call

On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 22:57 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Myklebust, Trond <> wrote:
> > You are still not explaining why they need to know the values at all? If
> > the values are bogus, then don't return them, and don't set the flag
> > that says they are being returned.
> th
> What if the xstat() and struct xstat eventually becomes what userspace uses as
> stat() (as a wrapper) and struct stat (if such a thing is possible with glibc
> versioning)?  Do older programs that think they're using stat() and don't know
> about the extra fields available expect to see a useful value in st_ino?

Does it really matter whether it is the kernel or userland that is
responsible for faking up inode numbers? If userland wants to use
xstat() in order to fake up a stat() call, then it gets to take
responsibility for the results.

Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer


Powered by blists - more mailing lists