[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52051652-617F-44F5-B8BA-B3BC402E8799@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:50:27 -0800
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [for-linus][PATCH 1/3] eventfs: Have the inodes all for files and directories all be the same
On January 22, 2024 10:19:12 AM PST, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 at 09:39, Linus Torvalds
><torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, why not juist add an inode number to your data structures,
>> at least for directories? And just do a static increment on it as they
>> get registered?
Yeah, this is what I'd suggest too. It avoids all the hash complexity. Is wrap-around realistic for it?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists