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 <>
To:     "J. Bruce Fields" <>
Cc:     Florian Weimer <>, Theodore Ts'o <>,
        Jan Kara <>, NeilBrown <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [man-pages RFC PATCH v4] statx, inode: document the new

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
Jeff Layton <>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists