linux-kernel - Re: Upcoming: Notifications, FS notifications and fsinfo()

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: <CAJfpegsXqxizOGwa045jfT6YdUpMxpXET-yJ4T8qudyQbCGkHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2020 18:40:13 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, dray@...hat.com,
        Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
        andres@...razel.de, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Subject: Re: Upcoming: Notifications, FS notifications and fsinfo()

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:07 PM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>
> > I've still not heard a convincing argument in favor of a syscall.
>
> From your own results, scanning 10000 mounts through mountfs and reading just
> two values from each is an order of magnitude slower without the effect of the
> dentry/inode caches.  It gets faster on the second run because the mountfs
> dentries and inodes are cached - but at a cost of >205MiB of RAM.  And it's
> *still* slower than fsinfo().

Already told you that we can just delete the dentry on dput_final, so
the memory argument is immaterial.

And the speed argument also, because there's no use case where that
would make a difference.  You keep bringing up the notification queue
overrun when watching a subtree, but that's going to be painful with
fsinfo(2) as well.   If that's a relevant use case (not saying it's
true), might as well add a /mnt/MNT_ID/subtree_info (trivial again)
that contains all information for the subtree.  Have fun implementing
that with fsinfo(2).

Thanks,
Miklos