linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] overlayfs fixes for 4.9-rc3

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: <CA+55aFwseoebvgSvi8sHswESOGnLknh+d6_aYAknwPFQbtp7hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 5 Nov 2016 10:41:53 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] overlayfs fixes for 4.9-rc3

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Can you please clarify your objection?

There are several:

 - timing. No way in hell will I take a new feature like this during an rc

 - lack of explanation. Why is this bad feature needed in the first
place? Why would overlayfs versioning _ever_ be a good idea?

 - is the implementation even sane? Right now I don't think overlayfs
even requires xattr support in the upper filesystem, so the whole
concept seems frankly totally misdesigned.

> I suppose you do not object to the concept of on-disk format version nor on-disk
> format compatible/incompatible features sets.

I object both to the concept and to the implementation and to the
timing. The thing seems broken. Doing it during the rc cycle makes it
doubly so.

> Just to fact that overlayfs didn't have those form day one, so it
> should find a way to cope with that situation without patching
> stable kernels?

What "situation"? There's no f*cking explanation of why we'd even want
this crap. Not in the commit message, not in the pull request, not
*anywhere*.

And then the commit marks that shit for stable? When it clearly
doesn't fix anything, and it has never ever been needed before?

NO.

               Linus