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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:40:33 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <>
To:     Dave Chinner <>
Cc:     Masayoshi Mizuma <>,
        Eric Sandeen <>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Theodore Ts'o <>,
        Andreas Dilger <>,
        Alexander Viro <>,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <>,,,
        linux-xfs <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: i_version mntopt gets visible through /proc/mounts

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:44:55PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:20:05PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > My memory was that after Jeff Layton's i_version patches, there wasn't
> > really a significant performance hit any more, so the ability to turn it
> > off is no longer useful.
> Yes, I completely agree with you here. However, with some
> filesystems allowing it to be turned off, we can't just wave our
> hands and force enable the option. Those filesystems - if the
> maintainers chose to always enable iversion - will have to go
> through a mount option deprecation period before permanently
> enabling it.

I don't understand why.

The filesystem can continue to let people set iversion or noiversion as
they like, while under the covers behaving as if iversion is always set.
I can't see how that would break any application.  (Or even how an
application would be able to detect that the filesystem was doing this.)


> > But looking back through Jeff's postings, I don't see him claiming that;
> > e.g. in:
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > he reports comparing old iversion behavior to new iversion behavior, but
> > not new iversion behavior to new noiversion behavior.
> Yeah, it's had to compare noiversion behaviour on filesystems where
> it was understood that it couldn't actually be turned off. And,
> realistically, the comaprison to noiversion wasn't really relevant
> to the problem Jeff's patchset was addressing...
> Cheers,
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner

Powered by blists - more mailing lists