linux-ext4 - Re: [man-pages RFC PATCH v4] statx, inode: document the new STATX_INO

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

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 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>