linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH-v2 0/5] add support for a lazytime mount option

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20141124090755.GA28534@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2014 01:07:55 -0800
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	xfs@....sgi.com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 0/5] add support for a lazytime mount option

What's the test coverage for this?  xfstest generic/192 tests that
atime is persisted over remounts, which we had a bug with when XFS
used to have a lazy atime implementation somewhat similar to the
proposal.

We should have something similar for c/mtime as well.  Also a test to
ensure timestamps are persisted afer a fsync, although right now I can't
imagine how to do that genericly as no other filesystem seems to have
an equivaent to XFS_IOC_GOINGDOWN.

It seems you also handle i_version updates lazily. although that's
not mentioned anywhere.  I actually have a clarification request out on
the IETF NFSv4 list about the persistance requirements for the change
counter but I've not seen an answer to it yet.
--
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