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  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, 12 Aug 2020 12:04:14 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <>
To:     Steven Whitehouse <>
Cc:     David Howells <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        linux-fsdevel <>,
        Al Viro <>, Karel Zak <>,
        Jeff Layton <>,
        Miklos Szeredi <>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <>,
        Christian Brauner <>,
        Lennart Poettering <>,
        Linux API <>,
        Ian Kent <>,
        LSM <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: file metadata via fs API

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 11:43 AM Steven Whitehouse <> wrote:
> Hi,
> On 12/08/2020 09:37, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > b) The awarded performance boost is not warranted for the use cases it
> > is designed for.

> This is a key point. One of the main drivers for this work is the
> efficiency improvement for large numbers of mounts. Ian and Karel have
> already provided performance measurements showing a significant benefit
> compared with what we have today. If you want to propose this
> alternative interface then you need to show that it can sustain similar
> levels of performance, otherwise it doesn't solve the problem. So
> performance numbers here would be helpful.

Definitely.   Will measure performance with the interface which Linus proposed.

I'm not worried, though; the problem with the previous interface was
that it resulted in the complete mount table being re-parsed on each
individual event resulting in quadratic behavior.  This doesn't affect
any interface that can query individual mount/superblock objects.

> Also - I may have missed this earlier in the discussion, what are the
> atomicity guarantees with this proposal? This is the other key point for
> the API, so it would be good to see that clearly stated (i.e. how does
> one use it in combination with the notifications to provide an up to
> date, consistent view of the kernel's mounts)

fsinfo(2) provides version counters on mount and superblock objects to
verify consistency of returned data, since not all data is returned in
a single call.  Same method could be used with the open/read based
interface to verify consistency in case multiple attributes/attribute
groups need to be queried.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists