linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: ext4: inode->i

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:   Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:39:34 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        William Koh <kkc6196@...com>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
        xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: ext4: inode->i_generation not assigned 0.

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:08:27AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05 2017, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 12:19:33PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >> So, what's the probability that there are clients out there that started
> >> talking to a 2.2-based knfsd and will now want to talk to a modern 4.13
> >> kernel seventeen years later?
> >
> > I think it's unlikely enough that we could drop that code;

Wow, that was a terrible sentence.  What I meant was: I think it's
unlikely that such a client exists, therefore I'm OK with dropping that
code.

Anyway:

> cc'ing Neil
> > in case we overlooked anything.
> 
> While I remain a fan of maintaining forward/backward compatibility as
> much as possible, 15 years is probably more than I can realistically
> hope for.
> As you say, a generation number of '0' is only special when old-style
> file handles are used, with the "subtree_check" export option.  They are
> unlikely to have been used recently.
...
> But for the main point of your question: I see no problem with removing
> nfs_fhbase_old and related code, and that includes the special handling
> of generation number zero.

So, we agree, OK.

I dunno if this is actually urgent.  But it'd be nice to clean out.

--b.