linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/25] vfs: add i_op->atomic

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: <87haxs8we3.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:26:28 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
	sfrench@...ba.org, sage@...dream.net, ericvh@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/25] vfs: add i_op->atomic_create()

Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:22:10PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> Good point.  Yes, ->create is probably worth getting rid of.  Mkdir, I'm
>> not so sure, but I'll look at what filesystems are doing.
>
> Btw, is there any good reason to keep ->atomic_open and ->atomic_create
> separate?  It seems like the instances in general share code anyway.

->atomic_open is called before lookup, ->atomic_create after lookup.

How would we differentiate between the two if they were common?  We
could have a filesystem flag, but for example CEPH does weird things
like using ->atomic_open for !O_CREAT and ->atomic_create for O_CREAT.

Thanks,
Miklos
--
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/