| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 09:24:43 -0400
From: bfields@...ldses.org (J. Bruce Fields)
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, djwong@...nel.org,
trondmy@...merspace.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
zohar@...ux.ibm.com, xiubli@...hat.com, chuck.lever@...cle.com,
lczerner@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz, brauner@...nel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ceph@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] iversion: update comments with info about atime
updates
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:40:02AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Yes, saying only that it must be different is intentional. What we
> really want is for consumers to treat this as an opaque value for the
> most part [1]. Therefore an implementation based on hashing would
> conform to the spec, I'd think, as long as all of the relevant info is
> part of the hash.
It'd conform, but it might not be as useful as an increasing value.
E.g. a client can use that to work out which of a series of reordered
write replies is the most recent, and I seem to recall that can prevent
unnecessary invalidations in some cases.
--b.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists