linux-kernel - Re: Finding hardlinks

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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612281909200.2960@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date:	Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:14:48 +0100 (CET)
From:	Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Benny Halevy <bhalevy@...asas.com>,
	Jan Harkes <jaharkes@...cmu.edu>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	nfsv4@...f.org
Subject: Re: Finding hardlinks

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

>
>> It seems like the posix idea of unique <st_dev, st_ino> doesn't
>> hold water for modern file systems
>
> are you really sure?
> and if so, why don't we fix *THAT* instead, rather than adding racy
> syscalls and such that just can't really be used right...

Why don't you rip off the support for colliding inode number from the 
kernel at all (i.e. remove iget5_locked)?

It's reasonable to have either no support for colliding ino_t or full 
support for that (including syscalls that userspace can use to work with 
such filesystem) --- but I don't see any point in having half-way support 
in kernel as is right now.

As for syscall races --- if you pack something with tar and the directory 
changes underneath, you can't expect sane output anyway.

Mikulas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/