linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, 3.7-rc7, RESEND] fs: revert commit bbdd6808 to fallocate UAPI

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: <201212051824.05621.Martin@lichtvoll.de>
Date:	Wed, 5 Dec 2012 18:24:05 +0100
From:	Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, 3.7-rc7, RESEND] fs: revert commit bbdd6808 to fallocate UAPI

Am Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2012 schrieb Theodore Ts'o:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 05:18:43PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Dave provided technical reasons.
> > 
> > First in the patch description and then in:
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/26/700
> 
> There were no technical reasons.  We are only reserving a bit.  And
> different file systems don't support all of the various different
> fallocate flags already --- for example, not all file systems support
> the punch system call.
> 
> Yes, I could create an entrely new ioctl() that looks just like
> fallocate, but supports the extra bit, just so that Dave and others
> don't have to be offended about the existence of that extra bit ---
> but Linus (and others) have considered ioctl()'s evil, since there is
> no type checking, and it's just silly to create a separate interface
> just because somebody doesn't think some other file system shouldn't
> implement a particular feature --- especially since it's not like
> we're have any kind of shortage of bits in the fallocate field.

Thanks for explaining your technical view about this. I appreciate it.

> Heck, I probably have more to complain about with the inode flags
> field, which were originally created specifically for ext2/3/4, and
> which has since been grabbed for use by other file systems, including
> btrfs.  You haven't heard me kvetching because btrfs has grabbed
> btrfs-specific inode flags for nocow and notail... no one even bother
> to try to get it past the fs-devel shed painting crew before *those*
> bits were allocated --- and I am absolutely fine with that.

Thats no technical reason – thats exactly the process / patch review stuff 
Linus does not seem to give a shit about at least with this topic.

That aside I wondered about that inode flags in earlier days already. At 
some time chattr +i worked with XFS and then it only worked in Ext3. 
Before that I thought that chattr stuff would work with all filesystems.

-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
--
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/