linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fat: print s_dev via fat

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: <87bk37t3zl.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 16:32:30 +0900
From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To: "Sungjong Seo" <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>
Cc: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fat: print s_dev via fat_msg

"Sungjong Seo" <sj1557.seo@...sung.com> writes:

>> Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@...sung.com> writes:
>> 
>> > To clarify MAJOR/MINOR number of a mounted device, fat_msg prints prefix
>> > that includes them.
>> 
>> Hm, why do we need the major/minor (why can't use sysfs to resolve if
>> need), and why do you care only fat?
>> Thanks.
> You're right, if you can access to sysfs on a system, this might not
> be useful. However, when analyzing problems based on logs, s_dev can be
> very helpful for identifying devices. This is because, in systems like
> Android, a filesystem gets mounted on a device node with a nickname
> like public:179,1.
>
> I think it would be really useful if applied to representative filesystems
> for removable storage devices such as fat and exfat. So I will send the
> similar PR to exfat as well.

So this is for the naming policy like android? And why don't you care
the other places (like vfs) that using ->s_id?

Because I dislike to use the inconsitent stuff, some logs are "sda3" and
some logs are "sda3[8:3]".

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>