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  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:   Sat, 5 Nov 2016 10:41:53 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     Amir Goldstein <>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        linux-fsdevel <>,
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] overlayfs fixes for 4.9-rc3

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Amir Goldstein <> 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

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



Powered by blists - more mailing lists