linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] vfs pile 3

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:	Sat, 13 Oct 2012 17:01:15 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs pile 3

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:48:10AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 08:51:28AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > It's somewhat pointless on its own...  If you were doing something with
> > the callers afterwards - sure, it would be make sense, but as it is...
> 
> I'd really like to see ->truncate and vmtruncate done, so from that side
> I'm absolutely in favour of this series.  What I'm a bit concerned about
> is that it just does the trivial 1:1 conversion and not actually
> converts the sequence of operations to the proper form, which was one
> of the two big reasons of moving away from ->truncate to start with.
> 
> I'd love to see the full conversion, but without adequate test coverage
> for all the fringe filesystems that might be a bit too much to expect
> from Marco.
> 
> I think just doing the easy conversions he did, and putting a TODO
> comment explaining how it should be taken further at each of the sites
> would be valueable on its own.

You know, I'm in the middle of dealing with one such TODO.  Yours, as it
were.  From six years ago.  kernel_thread() unexporting.  TODO comments
of any form are routinely shat upon and ignored, especially when shuffled
away into less read parts of the tree... ;-/

I'd rather see it done fs-by-fs.  Starting with something reasonably easy
to test - minixfs would do nicely.  Don't get me wrong - I'm all for
burying ->truncate(); what I'm worried about is that we'll end up burying
the warning about the reasons why vmtruncate() was a bad idea, leaving the
functionality exactly as it used to be...
--
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/