linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] vfs: add permute operation

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: <CAJfpegvG2uVy6vsoGHnsjpOeR+40VVT9dAdjBs7xYYXtyYZadA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 May 2013 12:15:38 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] vfs: add permute operation

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:

>>  1) check if destination directory is empty:  upper directory contains a
>> whiteout for each lower directory entry and nothing else
>>  2) if empty then remove whiteouts in destination directory
>>  3) and then go on with the normal rename procedure, replacing the empty
>> destination directory with the source directory ,
>>
>> This is done with directory locking, so atomicity is not usually a problem.
>> But in case of a crash between 2) and 3)  we just seriously corrupted the
>> overlay.
>>
>> Suggestions for fixing that?
>
> Why not just do the NFS thing. That has worked forever - using a
> sillyrename as a "pending deletion" instead of actually deleting
> things.
>
> So in between (1) and (2), silly-rename the pseudo-empty target. At
> that point (2) is no longer even an atomicity requirement, because you
> can do the whiteout removal later. In fact, you probably want to do it
> at the end, after doing the "real" rename.

Okay, nice idea.   More specifically we want to replace the directory
containing whiteouts with an opaque empty directory, which can be done
with a cross-rename.

Then we are left with basically two new variants of rename:

  - cross rename - exchange two names
  - plain overwriting rename but whiteout source

I'm fine with that.

As for userspace interfaces I think the cross-rename is useful enough
to justify a new syscall (rename/renameat don't have flags
unfortunately).

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/