linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] Add FAT_IOCTL_GET_VOLUME

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <874ncek4q1.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date:	Mon, 01 Jul 2013 18:29:58 +0900
From:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:	dmitry pervushin <dpervushin@...il.com>
Cc:	Bintian Wang <bintian.wang@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Lockwood <lockwood@...roid.com>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Add FAT_IOCTL_GET_VOLUME_ID

dmitry pervushin <dpervushin@...il.com> writes:

> Hello Bintian,
>
> The original idea discussed with John was to allow
> FAT_IOCTL_GET_VOLUME_ID (broken or not) only on directory nodes, and
> even on the root directory node. That's why it is should be *not* in
> fat_generic_ioctl.

The question would be, why do we have to limit only on directory?

When I'm reviewing this, I recalled fstatvfs(2) as referenced one. The
both get the info of fs. fstatvfs(2) doesn't limit only on
directory. But, in the FAT_IOCTL_GET_VOLUME_ID case, it limits.

I wonder why?

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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/