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]

Date:	Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:11:39 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
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

Le samedi 16 octobre 2010 à 12:35 -0400, Christoph Hellwig a écrit :

> 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.

This is what we call code factorization. I wont call it evil.

If we want to change get_next_ino(void) implementation to 
get_next_ino(struct inode *), or even get_next_inode(struct inode
*inode, struct super_block *sb)
 then we must go through all fs after your patch to add the new
parameter.

I proposed an implementation on get_next_ino() on 32bit arches, with no
per_cpu and shared counter, assuming we know the inode pointer. With
your patch, it become very difficult to implement such an idea.

--
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/