linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] timestamp fixes

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: <20230920-fixpunkt-besingen-128f43c16416@brauner>
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2023 18:22:14 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] timestamp fixes

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:28:11AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Christian - I'm just going to assume that you'll sort this out and
> > I'll get a new pull request at some point. Holler if you think
> > something else is needed, ok?
> 
> I'll take care of it and will send you a new pull request once
> everything's sorted. Thanks for looking!

In the meantime we had a report that unconditionally enabling
multi-grain timestamps causes a regression for some users workloads.

So, the honest thing is to revert the five commits that introduced the
infrastructure on top of the cleanup we did for v6.6. Jeff and Jan
agreed and we can give it another go for v6.7+. The general improvements
to timestamp handling and related cleanup stand on their.

I'll be putting the reverts into -next now and I'll get you a pull
request by the end of the week. In case you'd rather do it right now
it's already here:

git@...olite.kernel.org:pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs tags/v6.6-rc3.vfs.ctime.revert

I'd put something like:

Users reported regressions due to enabling multi-grained timestamps
unconditionally because timestamps appeared stale and could break
compilation. As no clear consensus on a solution has come up and the
discussion has gone back to the drawing board whether we should even
expose this to userspace, revert the infrastructure changes for. If it
isn't code that's here to stay, make it go away.

Sorry for the inconvenience.
Christian