linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new

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: <20101016163517.GF20086@infradead.org>
Date:	Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:35:17 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, 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

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 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.

What's the point, really?  Assigning i_ino in new_inode always has been
an utterly stupid idea to start with.  I fixed the few filesystem that
need it to do it explicitly.  There's nothing unsafe about it - checking
callers of new_inode for manual i_ino assignment was trivial.

Conditional code like the one you suggested is simply evil - it
complicates things instead of simplifying them.
--
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/