| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:09:13 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode Le samedi 16 octobre 2010 à 19:14 +1100, Dave Chinner a écrit : > From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> > > Instead of always assigning an increasing inode number in new_inode > move the call to assign it into those callers that actually need it. > For now callers that need it is estimated conservatively, that is > the call is added to all filesystems that do not assign an i_ino > by themselves. For a few more filesystems we can avoid assigning > any inode number given that they aren't user visible, and for others > it could be done lazily when an inode number is actually needed, > but that's left for later patches. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com> I wonder if adding a flag in super_block to explicitely say : "I dont need new_inode() allocates a i_ino for my new inode, because I'll take care of this myself later" would be safer, permiting each fs maintainer to assert the flag instead of a single patch. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists