linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tmpfs: Add per-superblock 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxg7a=U674CeT5=j7181=Y8EyMCQhFeL76B95_tGpQeJdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jan 2020 22:08:32 +0200
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To:     Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tmpfs: Add per-superblock i_ino support

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:00 PM Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name> wrote:
>
> Amir Goldstein writes:
> >Wouldn't it be easier to check max_inodes instead of passing this
> >use_sb_ino arg?
> >Is there any case where they *need* to differ?
>
> Hmm, I suppose probably not? In that case should I just check against
> SB_KERNMOUNT, since max_inodes can only be 0 in that case?
>

Yes, I think that would be best.

Thanks,
Amir.