linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] ocfs2 changes for 2.6.32

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, 14 Sep 2009 15:14:35 -0700
From:	Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@...cle.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ocfs2 changes for 2.6.32

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 02:32:36PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Joel Becker wrote:
> >
> > Linus, et al,
> > 	Here are the ocfs2 feature changes for 2.6.32.  The big ticket
> > item is the reflinkat(2) system call and ocfs2's support for it.  The
> > ocfs2 support accounts for all but a handful of the changes.  The
> > remaining few patches are fixes.
> 
> I _really_ want some kind of ack's for new filesystem system calls like 
> this. I'm not going to pull a new 'reflink[at]()' system call just based 
> on a single filesystem.

	I'll get specific acks.  I sent it via ocfs2.git because others
recommended I not send it upstream in June but instead wait until
I had at least one filesystem implementing it.

> Yes, there's clearly been _some_ discussion, but (a) I've not seen it 
> (since it's been on 'fsdevel', which is one of those single-topic mailing 
> lists that I'm totally uninterested in, since they tend to become clique 
> groups) and (b) you don't even say whether the thing has been acked by 
> things like the security angle etc.

	Fair enough.  Don't worry, the security folks were involved.
I'll get direct acks.

> I also don't understand why it's called 'reflink'. Why not 'copyfile'? We 
> should not name things by implementation, we should name things by what 
> they _do_. And I'm not seeing what is so 'reflink' about this that it's 
> not a 'copyfile'. I also am not entirely clear on why you need the source 
> name, and not - for example - an 'fd'.
> 
> Are we going to add 'freflink[at]()' at some point?

	It's a link(2) analogue.  symlink(2) has the loosest coupling,
and reflink(2) the highest.  We're not going to add freflink[at]().
It's a snap, not a copy.  It can be used to implement a copy, and
copyfile() in libc can be written with reflinkat(2), but it isn't just a
copy.

Joel

-- 

"There is shadow under this red rock.
 (Come in under the shadow of this red rock)
 And I will show you something different from either
 Your shadow at morning striding behind you
 Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you.
 I will show you fear in a handful of dust."

Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@...cle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
--
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/