linux-kernel - Re: If not readdir() then what?

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.4.61.0704080142080.27251@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:44:34 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
cc:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: If not readdir() then what?


On Apr 7 2007 16:36, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
>So how do we solve this problem?  I can think of two solutions:
>
>1) Deprecate telldir/seekdir() altogether.  Relatively few progams use
>this functionality, and it is highly questionable how useful it is,
>anyway.  If you use telldir/seekdir and keep the cookie for a long
>time, even the POSIX-provided guarantees about files that are created
>and deleted between the telldir() and seekdir() points in time makes
>its utility highly dubious.
>
>2) If application programs must have telldir/seekdir, than expand the
>size of the cookie from 32-bits to a minimum of 128 bits, and
>preferably larger --- say 512 bits, to accomodate systems that might
>be using 512-bit variant of SHA-2.  [...]

Maybe a combination of both? That is, replace telldir by an
independent emulation layer.


Jan
-- 
-
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/