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:   Sat, 20 Jun 2020 13:09:24 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <>
To:     Eric Sandeen <>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <>,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <>,
        "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 Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:00:43PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 6/19/20 8:56 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:49:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> ...
> >> However, other people have different opinions on this matter (and we
> >> know that from the people who considered XFS v4 -> v5 going slower
> >> because iversion a major regression), and so we must acknowledge
> >> those opinions even if we don't agree with them.
> > 
> > Do you have any of those reports handy?  Were there numbers?
> I can't answer that but did a little digging.  MS_I_VERSION as an option
> appeared here:
> so the optional enablement was there on day one, without any real explanation
> of why.

My memory is that they didn't have measurements at first, but worried
that there might be a performance issue.  Which later mesurements

But that Jeff Layton's work eliminated most of that.

I think ext4 was the focuse of the concern, but xfs might also have had
a (less serious) regression, and btrfs might have actually had it worst?

But I don't have references and my memory may be wrong.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists