On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 02:25:32PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 09:09:41PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:24:20AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 09:19:42PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > > > > > > > > Should I split the file-specific info and the fs-specific info and make the > > > > second optional? What I'm thinking of is something like this: > > > > > > > > Have a file information structure: > > > > > > > > struct statx { > > > > /* 0x00 */ > > > > uint32_t st_mask; /* What results were written */ > > > > uint32_t st_information; /* Information about the file */ > > > > uint16_t st_mode; /* File mode */ > > > > uint16_t __spare0[3]; > > > > /* 0x10 */ > > > > uint32_t st_uid; /* User ID of owner */ > > > > uint32_t st_gid; /* Group ID of owner */ > > > > uint32_t st_nlink; /* Number of hard links */ > > > > uint32_t st_blksize; /* Optimal size for filesystem I/O */ > > > > /* 0x20 */ > > > > struct statx_dev st_rdev; /* Device ID of special file */ > > > > struct statx_dev st_dev; /* ID of device containing file */ > > > > /* 0x30 */ > > > > int32_t st_atime_ns; /* Last access time (ns part) */ > > > > int32_t st_btime_ns; /* File creation time (ns part) */ > > > > int32_t st_ctime_ns; /* Last attribute change time (ns part) */ > > > > int32_t st_mtime_ns; /* Last data modification time (ns part) */ > > > > /* 0x40 */ > > > > int64_t st_atime; /* Last access time */ > > > > int64_t st_btime; /* File creation time */ > > > > int64_t st_ctime; /* Last attribute change time */ > > > > int64_t st_mtime; /* Last data modification time */ > > > > /* 0x60 */ > > > > uint64_t st_ino; /* Inode number */ > > > > uint64_t st_size; /* File size */ > > > > uint64_t st_blocks; /* Number of 512-byte blocks allocated */ > > > > uint64_t st_gen; /* Inode generation number */ > > > > > > I don't think we want to expose the inode generation numbers. It is > > > trivial to construct NFS file handles (usually just fsid, inode > > > number and generation) with that information and hence bypass > > > security checks to access files. > > > > I'm not convinced there's much value in trying to keep filehandles > > secret. > > Sure, but I can't really see any good reason to expose filesystem > internal implementation details like this - a generation number is > usually used to differentiate between inode life cycles which > userspace has no concept of and is different for every filesystem, > so it's behaviour and values are not going to be consistent across > filesystems. That's OK. The only requirement would be that the (inode number, inode generation) pair be different for different inodes on the same filesystem. > Some filesystems might not even have a generation > number they can export, and that makes me wonder if there is any > good reason for exposing it at all. That's true of a number of these new attributes. > If you need to discriminate between versions of files with the same > name, then use name_to_handle_at() and compare filehandles.... Sure. Since the only use case given for this has been constructing filehandles, and since we already have an interface for that, I don't feel particularly strongly about this. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html