linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v18 11/22] vfs: Cache base

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160315071256.GD19747@infradead.org>
Date:	Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:12:56 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	XFS Developers <xfs@....sgi.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
	chao2.yu@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 11/22] vfs: Cache base_acl objects in inodes

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 05:24:45PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> POSIX ACLs and RichACLs are different objects, with different members
> and different algorithms operating on them. The only commonality is
> that they are both kmalloc()ed, reference counted objects, and when an
> inode is destroyed, both kinds of ACLs can be put in the same way,
> avoiding an unnecessary if. What kind of common-code container beyond
> that are you still dreaming about?

We still have a main object that is simply a list of ACEs.  But if that
doesn't work out (I suspect it should) I don't think the common base
object is a good idea.  It just leads to a lot of crazy container_of
calls.  If the common object abstraction doesn't work out we'll need
a procedural one instead that has common acl_* calls that decide what
do to based on the file system acl flag.