linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 0/2] vfs / btrfs: add support for ustat()

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:	Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:29:50 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc:	clm@...com, jbacik@...com, hch@...radead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeffm@...e.com, fdmanana@...e.com,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 0/2] vfs / btrfs: add support for ustat()

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 07:58:56PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> Christoph had noted that this seemed associated to the problem
> that the btrfs uses different assignments for st_dev than s_dev,
> but much as I'd like to see that changed based on discussions so
> far its unclear if this is going to be possible unless strong
> commitment is reached.

Explain, please.  Whose commitment and commitment to what, exactly?
Having different ->st_dev values for different files on the same
fs is a bloody bad idea; why does btrfs do that at all?  If nothing else,
it breaks the usual "are those two files on the same fs?" tests...
--
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/