linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] FUSE: Retire superblock on force unmount

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: <CAONX=-do9yvxW2gTak0WGbFVPiLbkM2xH5LReMZkvC-upOUVxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 May 2022 08:55:14 +1000
From:   Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...omium.org>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] FUSE: Retire superblock on force unmount

> Yep, messing with the bdi doesn't look good.  Fuse always uses a
> private bdi, so it's not even necessary.

The reason I needed to remove the bdi is name collision - fuse
generates a fixed name for its bdi based on the underlying block
device. However, those collisions of mine were conducted on a
version prior to the private bdi introduction, I am not sure if that
is supposed to fix the collision issue. Need to check

Thanks,
Daniil