linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/9] timekeeping: new interfaces for multigrain timestamp handing

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:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:40:08 -1000
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Chandan Babu R <chandan.babu@...cle.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.de>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/9] timekeeping: new interfaces for multigrain
 timestamp handing

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 09:07, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> The new flag idea is a good one. The catch though is that there are no
> readers of i_version in-kernel other than NFSD and IMA, so there would
> be no in-kernel users of I_VERSION_QUERIED_STRICT.

I actually see that as an absolute positive.

I think we should *conceptually* do those two flags, but then realize
that there are no users of the STRICT version, and just skip it.

So practically speaking, we'd end up with just a weaker version of
I_VERSION_QUERIED that is that "I don't care about atime" case.

I really can't find any use that would *want* to see i_version updates
for any atime updates. Ever.

We may have had historical user interfaces for i_version, but I can't
find any currently.

But to be very very clear: I've only done some random grepping, and I
may have missed something. I'm not dismissing Dave's worries, and he
may well be entirely correct.

Somebody would need to do a much more careful check than my "I can't
find anything".

             Linus