linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/2] statx: move STATX_ATTR_DAX attribute handling to filesystems

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: <421cb25d-ca52-0a08-e535-5f650dda8d93@sandeen.net>
Date:   Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:11:24 -0600
From:   Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Xiaoli Feng <xifeng@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] statx: move STATX_ATTR_DAX attribute handling to
 filesystems

On 12/1/20 4:09 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So basically, the thing that argues against this patch is that it
> seems to just duplicate things inside filesystems, when the VFS layter
> already has the information.
> 
> Now, if the VFS information was possibly stale or wrong, that woudl be
> one thing. But then we'd have other and bigger  problems elsewhere as
> far as I can tell.
> 
> IOW - make generic what can be made generic, and try to avoid having
> filesystems do their own thing.
> 
> [ Replace "filesystems" by "architectures" or whatever else, this is
> obviously not a filesystem-specific rule in general. ]
> 
> And don't get me wrong - I don't _hate_ the patch, and I don't care
> _that_ deeply, but it just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. My
> initial query was really about "what am I missing - can you please
> flesh out the commit message because I don't understand what's wrong".

Backing way up, my motivation was: Only the filesystem can appropriately
set the statx->attributes_mask, so it has to be done there. Since that
has to be done in the filesystem, set the actual attribute flag adjacent
to it, as is done for ~every other flag.

*shrug*

In any case I resent the flag value clash fix on a separate thread as
V2, hopefully that one is straightforward enough to go in.

Thanks,
-Eric