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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:08:59 +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()

Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> writes:

> 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.

Or let the filesystem do the lookup in ->atomic_open if it wants (and
pass the need_lookup flag to the filesystem).

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/