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: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 10:02:27 -0400 From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, djwong@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com, trondmy@...merspace.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, zohar@...ux.ibm.com, xiubli@...hat.com, chuck.lever@...cle.com, lczerner@...hat.com, brauner@...nel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [man-pages RFC PATCH v4] statx, inode: document the new STATX_INO_VERSION field On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 09:51 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:55:04AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Because of the "seen" flag, we have a 63 bit counter to play with. Could > > we use a similar scheme to the one we use to handle when "jiffies" > > wraps? Assume that we'd never compare two values that were more than > > 2^62 apart? We could add i_version_before/i_version_after macros to make > > it simple to handle this. > > As far as I recall the protocol just assumes it can never wrap. I guess > you could add a new change_attr_type that works the way you describe. > But without some new protocol clients aren't going to know what to do > with a change attribute that wraps. > Right, I think that's the case now, and with contemporary hardware that shouldn't ever happen, but in 10 years when we're looking at femtosecond latencies, could this be different? I don't know. > I think this just needs to be designed so that wrapping is impossible in > any realistic scenario. I feel like that's doable? > > If we feel we have to catch that case, the only 100% correct behavior > would probably be to make the filesystem readonly. What would be the recourse at that point? Rebuild the fs from scratch, I guess? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists