From: Richard W. <ri...@no...> - 2017-09-12 14:50:09
|
Sascha, Am Dienstag, 12. September 2017, 16:23:18 CEST schrieb Sascha Hauer: > > So, for the IMA use-case we don't even have to persist i_version. > > That would be cool. > > Yes, that's what earlier versions of this patch did, nacked by Christoph > > Hellwig with the words: > > Maybe IMA doesn't care, but if you set MS_I_VERSION the fs does give > > a guarantee. Sp NAK on this patch as-is. > > (see https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/4/12/61) > > Reading this sentence again it may be a possibility to just increase the > i_version field without setting the MS_I_VERSION flag. Yes. > > I need to read what other filesystems do, it is still not completely clear > > to me what the expected i_version semantics are. Satisfying IMA seems to > > be easy but we need to be very sure to not break other futuer i_version > > users... > Sure. I am also not sure whether I implemented it correctly since it's > implementation defined by some filesystem drivers which I am afraid are > not even consistent. As usual, let's try to keep at least UBIFS kind of sane. ;-) Thanks, //richard |