| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 23:59:29 +0100 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> Cc: matthew@....cx, bhalevy@...asas.com, arjan@...radead.org, mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, jaharkes@...cmu.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, nfsv4@...f.org Subject: Re: Finding hardlinks Hi! > > > High probability is all you have. Cosmic radiation hitting your > > > computer will more likly cause problems, than colliding 64bit inode > > > numbers ;) > > > > Some of us have machines designed to cope with cosmic rays, and would be > > unimpressed with a decrease in reliability. > > With the suggested samefile() interface you'd get a failure with just > about 100% reliability for any application which needs to compare a > more than a few files. The fact is open files are _very_ expensive, > no wonder they are limited in various ways. > > What should 'tar' do when it runs out of open files, while searching > for hardlinks? Should it just give up? Then the samefile() interface > would be _less_ reliable than the st_ino one by a significant margin. You need at most two simultenaously open files for examining any number of hardlinks. So yes, you can make it reliable. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists