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]

Message-ID: <20200620170924.GI1514@fieldses.org>
Date:   Sat, 20 Jun 2020 13:09:24 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:     Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@...il.com>,
        "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 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
confirmed.

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.

--b.