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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 14 Jul 2020 13:26:17 -0700
From:   Eric Sandeen <>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <>,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <>,
        Theodore Ts'o <>,
        Andreas Dilger <>,
        Alexander Viro <>,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <>,,,
        linux-xfs <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: i_version mntopt gets visible through /proc/mounts

On 7/14/20 1:30 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 04:45:19PM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> I wandered back into this thread for some reason ... ;)
>> Since iversion/noiversion is /already/ advertised as a vfs-level mount option,
>> wouldn't exposing it in /proc/mounts solve the original problem here?
>> ("i_version" is wrong, because it's ext4-specific, but "iversion" is handled
>> by the vfs, so it's meaningful for any filesystems, and it will also trivially
>> allow mount(2) to preserve it across remounts for all filesystems that set it by
>> default.)
>> Seems like that's the fastest path to fixing the current problems, even if a
>> long-term goal may be to deprecate it altogether.
> But they should not be exposed as a mount option.  E.g. for XFS we
> decide internally if we have a useful i_version or not, totally
> independent of the mount option that leaked into the VFS.  So we'll
> need to fix how the flag is used before doing any new work in this area.

It's been explicitly exposed, documented, fixed, updated etc for about
12 years now.

I was just hoping to make the current situation - even if we regret its
mere existence - less broken, because going down a deprecation path will
take us a while even if we choose it.

In the meantime I'll just make sure xfs isn't broken on remount, but had
hoped for a more general fix.  *shrug*


Powered by blists - more mailing lists