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: <CAOQ4uxjsfAwpvKj1PXvR+_DWKm0HxF7sn1j7QfTzXWquvvXvTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 5 Nov 2016 08:44:51 +0200
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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 Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>>
>> Also introduce the concept of feature flags to allow backward incompatible
>> changes to the overlay format.  This should have been there from day one; the
>> best we can do now is backport to stable kernels.  Add the check for features
>> without adding any actual features yet.
>
> No. I pulled the three other commits, but not that last one.
>
> That feature just seems to actively *encourage* backwards incompatible
> features. It's a bad idea. Don't do it. If we've been able to do
> without it so far, then why should we suddenly start doing things like
> this?
>
> So I don't agree that it should have been there since day one, it just
> shouldn't exist at all.
>

Linus,

Can you please clarify your objection?

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

Thanks,
Amir.