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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 20:46:57 +0100 From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>, "bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>, "zohar@...ux.ibm.com" <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, "djwong@...nel.org" <djwong@...nel.org>, "xiubli@...hat.com" <xiubli@...hat.com>, "brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>, "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, "david@...morbit.com" <david@...morbit.com>, "fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "chuck.lever@...cle.com" <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, "linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>, "tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>, "jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>, "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, "lczerner@...hat.com" <lczerner@...hat.com>, "adilger.kernel@...ger.ca" <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, "ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [man-pages RFC PATCH v4] statx, inode: document the new STATX_INO_VERSION field On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:40:43AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > We do hold i_rwsem today. I'm working on changing that. Preserving > atomic directory changeinfo will be a challenge. The only mechanism I > can think if is to pass a "u64*" to all the directory modification ops, > and they fill in the version number at the point where it is incremented > (inode_maybe_inc_iversion_return()). The (nfsd) caller assumes that > "before" was one less than "after". If you don't want to internally > require single increments, then you would need to pass a 'u64 [2]' to > get two iversions back. Are you serious? What kind of boilerplate would that inflict on the filesystems not, er, opting in for that... scalability improvement experiment?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists