linux-kernel - Re: [patch 24/26] mount options: fix tmpfs

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: <E1JJSMA-00009M-4h@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:40:54 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	hugh@...itas.com
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 24/26] mount options: fix tmpfs

> 
> Thanks Miklos, that's a welcome enhancement, nicely done.  I've only
> noticed one thing wrong (MPOL_PREFERRED shown as "default"); but thought
> shmem_config didn't add much value - I'd rather avoid those syntactic
> changes to unchanged code; and several tmpfs defaults being relative
> (e.g. to totalram_pages, or to mounter's fsuid), I ended up preferring
> to do real tests in shmem_show_options.

I completely agree, this is much better than my version.

> Thus, for example, if memory is hotplugged in or out later, what started
> out as an unspecified size option will then get shown as explicit size.
> (I did think for a while that I wanted to show explicit size in all
> cases; but it looked pretty silly on udev.)  I think that's the correct
> behaviour, that otherwise would be misleading; but I may be looking at
> this the wrong way round, what's your view?

I agree, this is the correct way.

I'll add functions for calculating the default max values, so the
calculations won't accidentally become different for the
initialization and the option showing.

> If you agree with the version below, please take it into your collection
> and insert your Signed-off-by.  I should admit, I've not yet tested how
> the NUMA policies look: you'll hear from me again tomorrow morning if
> those turn out to wrong.

OK, I'll send this to Andrew.  Maybe I'll wait until tomorrow to hear
if it's working on NUMA.

Thanks,
Miklos
--
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/