From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: create ioctl to discard-or-zeroout a range of blocks Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:25:30 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20160302040947.16685.42926.stgit@birch.djwong.org> <20160302225601.GB21890@birch.djwong.org> <20160303180924.GA4116@infradead.org> <20160303223952.GE24012@thunk.org> <20160303231050.GU29057@dastard> <20160309230819.GB3949@thunk.org> <56E18B9B.5070503@gmail.com> <56E24CA5.3030702@redhat.com> <20160311135952.57a44931@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: One Thousand Gnomes , Ric Wheeler , Theodore Ts'o , Gregory Farnum , Dave Chinner , "Martin K. Petersen" , Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" , Jens Axboe , Andrew Morton , Linux API , Linux Kernel Mailing List , shane.seymour@hpe.com, Bruce Fields , linux-fsdevel , Jeff Layton , Eric Sandeen List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > What if we had an ioctl to do these data-leaking operations that took, > as an extra parameter, an fd to the block device node. They allow > access if the fd points to the right inode and has FMODE_READ (and LSM > checks say it's okay). Sure, it's awkward, but it's much safer. That sounds absolutely horrible. I'd *much* prefer the suggestion from Alan to simply have a mount-time option to enable it. That way, you will never get any surprises, and no "subtle new behavior for somebody who set their system up in a way that doesn't allow for this". So you'd have to explicitly say "my setup is ok with hole punching". Linus