linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC v2 1/4] fs: Add generic file system event notifications

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: <20150427142421.GB21942@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:24:21 +0200
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Beata Michalska <b.michalska@...sung.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz, tytso@....edu,
	adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, hughd@...gle.com, lczerner@...hat.com,
	hch@...radead.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	kyungmin.park@...sung.com, kmpark@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/4] fs: Add generic file system event notifications

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:51:41PM +0200, Beata Michalska wrote:
> Introduce configurable generic interface for file
> system-wide event notifications, to provide file
> systems with a common way of reporting any potential
> issues as they emerge.
> 
> The notifications are to be issued through generic
> netlink interface by newly introduced multicast group.
> 
> Threshold notifications have been included, allowing
> triggering an event whenever the amount of free space drops
> below a certain level - or levels to be more precise as two
> of them are being supported: the lower and the upper range.
> The notifications work both ways: once the threshold level
> has been reached, an event shall be generated whenever
> the number of available blocks goes up again re-activating
> the threshold.
> 
> The interface has been exposed through a vfs. Once mounted,
> it serves as an entry point for the set-up where one can
> register for particular file system events.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Beata Michalska <b.michalska@...sung.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/filesystems/events.txt |  231 ++++++++++
>  fs/Makefile                          |    1 +
>  fs/events/Makefile                   |    6 +
>  fs/events/fs_event.c                 |  770 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  fs/events/fs_event.h                 |   25 ++
>  fs/events/fs_event_netlink.c         |   99 +++++
>  fs/namespace.c                       |    1 +
>  include/linux/fs.h                   |    6 +-
>  include/linux/fs_event.h             |   58 +++
>  include/uapi/linux/fs_event.h        |   54 +++
>  include/uapi/linux/genetlink.h       |    1 +
>  net/netlink/genetlink.c              |    7 +-
>  12 files changed, 1257 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/filesystems/events.txt
>  create mode 100644 fs/events/Makefile
>  create mode 100644 fs/events/fs_event.c
>  create mode 100644 fs/events/fs_event.h
>  create mode 100644 fs/events/fs_event_netlink.c
>  create mode 100644 include/linux/fs_event.h
>  create mode 100644 include/uapi/linux/fs_event.h

Any reason why you just don't do uevents for the block devices today,
and not create a new type of netlink message and userspace tool required
to read these?

> --- a/fs/Makefile
> +++ b/fs/Makefile
> @@ -126,3 +126,4 @@ obj-y				+= exofs/ # Multiple modules
>  obj-$(CONFIG_CEPH_FS)		+= ceph/
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PSTORE)		+= pstore/
>  obj-$(CONFIG_EFIVAR_FS)		+= efivarfs/
> +obj-y				+= events/

Always?

> diff --git a/fs/events/Makefile b/fs/events/Makefile
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..58d1454
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/fs/events/Makefile
> @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
> +#
> +# Makefile for the Linux Generic File System Event Interface
> +#
> +
> +obj-y := fs_event.o

Always?  Even if the option is not selected?  Why is everyone forced to
always use this code?  Can't you disable it for the "tiny" systems that
don't need it?

> +struct fs_trace_entry {
> +	atomic_t	 count;

Why not just use a 'struct kref' for your count, which will save a bunch
of open-coding of reference counting, and forcing us to audit your code
to verify you got all the corner cases correct?  :)

> +	atomic_t	 active;
> +	struct super_block *sb;

Are you properly reference counting this pointer?  I didn't see where
that was happening, so I must have missed it.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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