linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] tmpfs: Support 64-bit inums per-sb

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: <20200107001643.GA485121@chrisdown.name>
Date:   Tue, 7 Jan 2020 00:16:43 +0000
From:   Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] tmpfs: Support 64-bit inums per-sb

Dave Chinner writes:
>It took 15 years for us to be able to essentially deprecate
>inode32 (inode64 is the default behaviour), and we were very happy
>to get that albatross off our necks.  In reality, almost everything
>out there in the world handles 64 bit inodes correctly
>including 32 bit machines and 32bit binaries on 64 bit machines.
>And, IMNSHO, there no excuse these days for 32 bit binaries that
>don't using the *64() syscall variants directly and hence support
>64 bit inodes correctlyi out of the box on all platforms.
>
>I don't think we should be repeating past mistakes by trying to
>cater for broken 32 bit applications on 64 bit machines in this day
>and age.

I'm very glad to hear that. I strongly support moving to 64-bit inums in all 
cases if there is precedent that it's not a compatibility issue, but from the 
comments on my original[0] patch (especially that they strayed from the 
original patches' change to use ino_t directly into slab reuse), I'd been given 
the impression that it was known to be one.

 From my perspective I have no evidence that inode32 is needed other than the 
comment from Jeff above get_next_ino. If that turns out not to be a problem, I 
am more than happy to just wholesale migrate 64-bit inodes per-sb in tmpfs.

0: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1170963/