linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s

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]

Date:   Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:47:05 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <ore@...gutronix.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     dedekind1@...il.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

Oleksij,

Am 12.04.2017 um 09:15 schrieb Oleksij Rempel:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:48:28PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:43:26PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Artem, do you remember why UBIFS didn't set s_uuid in first place?
>>
>> It's an extremely odd field - only a hand full of file systems set it
>> (e.g. XFS doesn't, although according to Mimi IMA supports XFS), and
>> it's never even used outside of the IMA/EVM code.
>>
>> We really need a feature flag that this field is valid that IMA can
>> check before adding more support for it.
> 
> It seems to be used by mm/cleancache.c
> void __cleancache_init_shared_fs()
> 
> but this affects only ocfs2.
> 
> So, if some flag should be implemented, who should do it? :)

I'll not do it for you. ;)

> If me, what flag should be created?

A super block flag that denotes that s_uuid is valid.

Thanks,
//richard