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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:15:34 +0000 From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, darrick.wong@...cle.com, clm@...com, josef@...icpanda.com, dsterba@...e.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Problems with determining data presence by examining extents? Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote: > The whole idea of an out of band interface is going to be racy and suffer > from implementation loss. I think what you want is something similar to > the NFSv4.2 READ_PLUS operation - give me that if there is any and > otherwise tell me that there is a hole. I think this could be a new > RWF_NOHOLE or similar flag, just how to return the hole size would be > a little awkward. Maybe return a specific negative error code (ENODATA?) > and advance the iov anyway. Just having call_iter_read() return a short read could be made to suffice... provided the filesystem doesn't return data I haven't written in (which could cause apparent corruption) and does return data I have written in (otherwise I have to go back to the server). David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists