From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHSET v3] non-recursive pathname resolution & RCU
 symlinks
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 02:26:45 +0100
Message-ID: <20150515012645.GH7232@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20150505052205.GS889@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20150511180650.GA4147@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20150513222533.GA24192@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFy+NNW1FcJj4Ka2d9u5uvEYOi8xfXH1JnOJ+LSbdtKO-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150514033040.GF7232@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFx3g5CzC-jHC55Ui=0+Spck-8Fe1eei9CKzT+ESHBj_mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150514220932.GC31808@samba2>
 <CA+55aFwyBZW6cnP6Otx2mP2HAuU6OtJoGBeSQUrp0kR+4bUNOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150514233632.GG7232@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFyEF=CkpXXCZsjAfWYOw5gX00MRmGo35dP8jBt4UQFfJw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyEF=CkpXXCZsjAfWYOw5gX00MRmGo35dP8jBt4UQFfJw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 05:25:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> We can easily make things per-operation, by adding another flag. We
> already have per-operation flags like LOOKUP_FOLLOW, which decides if
> we follow the last symlink or not. We could add a LOOKUP_ICASE, which
> decides whether we compare case or not. Obviously, we'd have to ad the
> proper O_ICASE for open (and AT_ICASE for fstatat() and friends).
> Exactly like we do for LOOKUP_FOLLOW.

> Btw, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's a great idea. I think
> icase compares are stupid. Really really stupid. But samba might be
> worth jumping though a few hoops for. The real problem is that even
> with just ASCII, it does make it much easier to create nasty hash
> collisions in the dentry hashes (same hash from 256 variations of
> aAaAAaaA - just repeat the same letter in different variations of
> lower/upper case).

Hold on.  Should
	stat("blah", &buf)	=> ENOENT, OK, let's create it
	mkdir("blah", 0) 	=> EEXIST, bugger, looks like a race
	stat("blah", &buf)	=> ENOENT, Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot
be possible?  No per-operation flags passed, doesn't even know of the
case-insensitive crap.  And if fstatat() without your new flag would
find c-i matches, then what does that flag do?

Confused...