linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] st_nlink after rmdir() and rename()

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, 3 Mar 2011 21:30:16 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] st_nlink after rmdir() and rename()

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 01:02:50PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > So we have to simulate some levels. I guess you
> > are not saying we don't need to care it at all though.
> 
> I'm saying that it should just work to set i_nlink=1 and not do
> anything at all. Ever. It's a valid model for directory counts.

Sure, no problem.  Just leave that cleaning of i_nlink on victim
in unlink/rmdir/rename; we *really* rely on that in e.g. deciding
when to free the damn inode in fat_evict_inode().

We need to mark them for freeing _anyway_, right?  It doesn't depend
on what exact value do we keep for live directories - "everyone got 1
for as long as they live" is just fine, and IMO it's a win, but it's
an unrelated question.
--
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/