linux-kernel - Re: [LSF TOPIC] statx extensions for subvol/snapshot filesystems & more

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]

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 09:14:51 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [LSF TOPIC] statx extensions for subvol/snapshot filesystems & more

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 16:48, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com> wrote:

> Right, nobody is arguing that.  Our plan is to
>
> 1) Introduce some sort of statx mechanism to expose this information.
> 2) Introduce an incompat fs feature flag to give unique inode numbers for people
>    that want them, and there stop doing the st_dev thing we currently do.

I don't get it.   What does the filesystem (the actual bits on disk)
have anything to do with how st_dev is exposed to userspace
applications?

This is not a filesystem feature, this is an interface feature.  And I
even doubt that salvaging st_dev is worth it.  Userspace should just
be converted to use something else.  In other words st_ino *and*
st_dev are legacy and we need to find superior alternatives.

Seems like there's an agreement about file handle being able to replace st_ino.

I'm not quite sure fsid or uuid can replace st_dev, but that's up for
discussion.

Thanks,
Miklos