linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL v2] 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: <20230924-trial-dennoch-e641f0e0ee1b@brauner>
Date:   Sun, 24 Sep 2023 12:26:51 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] timestamp fixes

> > Those workloads are broken garbage, and we should *not* use that kind
> > of sh*t to decide on VFS internals.
> >
> 
> Sorry, I phrased it completely wrong.

Thanks for clearing this up. I had just formulated my own reply but I'll
happily delete it. :)

> The workloads don't expect 1ns resolution.

Yes, they don't. In the revert explanation I just used that number to
illustrate the general ordering problem. The workload that surfaced the
issue is just plain weird of course but it points to a more general
ordering problem.

> The workloads just compare timestamps of objects and expect some sane
> not-before ordering rules.

Yes.

> If user visible timestamps are truncated to 100ns all is good.

Yes.