linux-kernel - Re: can UBIFS be taken to linux-next?

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:	Wed, 28 May 2008 08:03:38 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...dex.ru>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: can UBIFS be taken to linux-next?

Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'm not aware of any issues which would block a 2.6.27 merge.
> 
> I haven't reviewed the filesystem myself.  Christoph Hellwig seems to
> have had a good go through it and had numerous review comments, but it
> is unclear what stage things are at with addressing them?

Indeed Christoph made a good go through and we appreciate this. We have
addressed most of his requests. I'll just cite the latest UBIFS submit
mail (http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121180458401234&w=2):

* Requests from Christoph Hellwig's review (may be found here:
  http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121093446502796&w=2). Few things
  related to the background thread were not done though. Here are
  explanations why: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121155640026661&w=2
  and http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121119680522445&w=2 (see end
  of the mail).
  Also, we have not changed readdir() implementation so far, but just
  put a comment that we cannot support NFS at the moment. However, we
  have an idea how to fix this, but need some comments from the community.
  We'll send a separate mail describing the problem and the possible
  solution shortly. Nevertheless, this should not be a blocker.

We are currently working on "state-less" (in Christoph's terminology)
readdir() implementation. Here is what we are doing:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121181030711128&w=2

Would be nice to get some comments on 2 possible issues which will
be present in the new implementation.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
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/