linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys

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]

Date:	Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:07:26 +0000
From:	Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, suparna@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com,
	alex@...sterfs.com, suzuki@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate()

On 5 Mar 2007, at 14:37, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 11:22:06PM +0000, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
>> And I specifically did NOT update the initialized size in the inode
>> thus it will remain at its old value thus all new allocated blocks
>> will be considered as present but not initialized thus a read will
>> always return zero whilst a write will do the right thing and pad
>> with zeroes as necessary (if the write is smaller than the block
>> size, etc).
>
> 	You're describing a method of doing in-advance preallocation
> where the filesystem format explicitly has support for this kind of
> feature in a way that doesn't require pre-zeroing the data blocks in
> question.

Indeed.

> 	The question which this subthread was concerned about was
> whether the kernel should get involved in initializing datablocks in
> the case where the filesystem format does not have this support, or
> whether this functionality should continue to be done in userspace.
> Given that glibc already has to support this for older kernels, I
> would argue that there's no point putting in generic support for
> filesystem that can't support a more advanced way of doing things.

Yes, I understood that after I had sent my post...  And yes, I would  
agree.  If glibc already does this there does not appear to be any  
value in just moving existing functionality into the kernel.  Simply  
let "dumb" file systems return ENOSYS and let glibc do it...  And any  
FS which can do it better can implement the function and then glibc  
should not go anywhere near it.

Best regards,

	Anton
-- 
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK
Linux NTFS maintainer, http://www.linux-ntfs.org/


-
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/