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-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
