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:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:13:05 +0200
From:   Florian Weimer <>
To:     Jeff Layton <>
Cc:     "J. Bruce Fields" <>,
        Theodore Ts'o <>, Jan Kara <>,
        NeilBrown <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [man-pages RFC PATCH v4] statx, inode: document the new

* Jeff Layton:

> To do this we'd need 2 64-bit fields in the on-disk and in-memory 
> superblocks for ext4, xfs and btrfs. On the first mount after a crash,
> the filesystem would need to bump s_version_max by the significant
> increment (2^40 bits or whatever). On a "clean" mount, it wouldn't need
> to do that.
> Would there be a way to ensure that the new s_version_max value has made
> it to disk? Bumping it by a large value and hoping for the best might be
> ok for most cases, but there are always outliers, so it might be
> worthwhile to make an i_version increment wait on that if necessary. 

How common are unclean shutdowns in practice?  Do ex64/XFS/btrfs keep
counters in the superblocks for journal replays that can be read easily?

Several useful i_version applications could be negatively impacted by
frequent i_version invalidation.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists