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  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:   Thu, 9 Apr 2020 10:33:19 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,,,, Jonathan Corbet <>,
        Serge Hallyn <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>, Tejun Heo <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Saravana Kannan <>,
        Jan Kara <>, David Howells <>,
        Seth Forshee <>,
        David Rheinsberg <>,
        Tom Gundersen <>,
        Christian Kellner <>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <>,
        St├ęphane Graber <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] loopfs: implement loopfs

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:53:20AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Almost 600 lines of code for a little bit of fine grained control
> is the wrong tradeoff.  Please find a cheaper way to do this.

I think that's a slight misrepresentation of the patchset. Of course, I
get reservations against adding new code but none of this code will
exist at all if the config option is not set; and the config option is
not selected by default. I don't want people to have to use something
they don't care about of course.
The patchset itself unblocks a range of use-cases we had issues with for
quite a while and the standalone, tiny filesystem approach has served us
well already, so this is not something new. It's not just gaining
fine-grained control, it's a whole set of new uses and we don't just do
it for the fun of doing it but because we do have actual users of this.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists