linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] fs: i_version mntopt gets visible through /proc/mounts

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]

Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:40:33 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@...il.com>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <m.mizuma@...fujitsu.com>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, jlayton@...hat.com
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.)

--b.

> 
> > But looking back through Jeff's postings, I don't see him claiming that;
> > e.g. in:
> > 
> > 	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20171222120556.7435-1-jlayton@kernel.org/
> > 	https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20180109141059.25929-1-jlayton@kernel.org/
> > 	https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/1517228795.5965.24.camel@redhat.com/
> > 
> > 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
> david@...morbit.com