linux-kernel - Re: [RFC Aufs2 #3 2/2] split 'xino' entry under sysfs

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:	Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:42:49 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	hooanon05@...oo.co.jp
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC Aufs2 #3 2/2] split 'xino' entry under sysfs

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:25:49AM +0900, hooanon05@...oo.co.jp wrote:
> 
> Greg KH:
> > > +Description:
> > > +		It shows the consumed blocks by xib (External Inode Number
> > > +		Bitmap), its block size and file size.
> > > +		When the aufs mount option 'noxino' is specified, it
> > > +		will be empty. About XINO files, see
> > > +		Documentation/filesystems/aufs/aufs.5 in detail.
> > 
> > Sysfs files are one value per file.  This violates that rule.
> 
> Current print format is 
> 	"%llux%lu %lld\n", st->blocks, st->blksize, (long long)st->size
> 
> Do you mean this has three values and violates the rule?

Hm, rule is "one value per file", since this file has 3 values, what do
you think?  :)

> And aufs should create three entries such like xib/blocks, xib/blksize
> and xib/size?

Yes.

> If I change it "<blocks>x<blksize>", is it still violation?

I don't understand.

> > Are all of these things something that a "normal" user would care about?
> > or are they development / debugging things?
> 
> Normal users want to care them, I guess.

Really?  Try leaving them out for now and see if anyone notices :)

> > And why are you using seq_file for a sysfs file?  That's not allowed,
> > and a sure sign you are doing something wrong, please remove all of
> > that.
> 
> I just wanted to set limit its size to PAGE_SIZE to print the absolute
> path. Is there another better approach?

Do you really need to print these paths?  And are they going to bigger
than PATH_MAX?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/