On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 06:43:38PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 17-10-24 08:25:19, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 11:15:49AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > Also good to know, thanks. However, at this point the lack of a clear > > > answer is making me wonder a bit more about inode numbers in the view > > > of VFS developers; do you folks care about inode numbers? > > > > The VFS itself does not care much about inode numbers. The Posix API > > does, although btrfs ignores that and seems to get away with that > > (mostly because applications put in btrfs-specific hacks). > > Well, btrfs plays tricks with *device* numbers, right? Exactly so that > st_ino + st_dev actually stay unique for each file. Whether it matters for > audit I don't dare to say :). Bcachefs does not care and returns non-unique > inode numbers. But st_ino + st_dev is the only thing Posix and thus historically Linux has guaranteed to applications. So if st_dev is unique, but you need an unknown scope in which it is unique it might as well not be for that purpose. And I think for any kind of audit report that is true as well.
