linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] getting misc stats/attributes via xattr API

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: <20220510155332.3zm5nycl7nmuxgdx@wittgenstein>
Date:   Tue, 10 May 2022 17:53:32 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] getting misc stats/attributes via xattr API

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 05:47:13PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 at 17:30, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > But now we're in the process of extending the *xattr() calls to operate
> > on mounts and filesystems so an additional getfsattr() (or another name)
> > is not fragmentation imho. And I definitely don't think this would
> > qualify as "crazy".
> 
> In that spirit st_dev does not belong in struct stat, because that is
> the property of the block device, not the inode.
> 
> But I feel we are going round in circles, lets please not get hung up
> on this issue.  Linus will have the final word on which variant (if
> either) is going to go in.

Well yes, I'm obviously not going to be d*ck about it and go around
NAKing it just because I didn't get my favorite name but I at least
want to register my strong opposition to the current "unification"
approach loud and clear. :)