linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH-v4 1/7] vfs: split update_time() into update_time() and write

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: <20141201171854.GH12140@twin.jikos.cz>
Date:	Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:18:54 +0100
From:	David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Linux Filesystem Development List 
	<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux btrfs Developers List <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	XFS Developers <xfs@....sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v4 1/7] vfs: split update_time() into update_time() and
 write_time()

On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 10:04:50AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:28:10AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 
> > The ->is_readonly method seems like a clear winner to me, I'm all for
> > adding it, and thus suggested moving it first in the series.
> 
> It's a real winner for me as well, but the reason why I dropped it is
> because if btrfs() has to keep its ->update_time function, we wouldn't
> actually have a user for is_readonly().  I suppose we could have
> update_time() call ->is_readonly() and then ->update_time() if they
> exist, but it only seemed to add an extra call and a bit of extra
> overhead without really simplifying things for btrfs.

We would use is_readonly in order to remove some extra checks from btrfs
(setxattr, removexattr, possibly setsize).

> If there were other users of ->is_readonly, then it would make sense,
> but it seemed better to move into a separate code refactoring series.

Yeah it would be better addressed separately as it's not the point of
lazytime patchset and only turned out to be a good idea during the
iterations.
--
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