From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ensure i_ino uniqueness in filesystems without permanent inode numbers (via pointer conversion) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:06:55 -0500 Message-ID: <1163776015.13410.71.camel@dantu.rdu.redhat.com> References: <1163770980.13410.39.camel@dantu.rdu.redhat.com> <20061117142435.GC18567@parisc-linux.org> <1163774903.13410.68.camel@dantu.rdu.redhat.com> <1163775685.17280.13.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Matthew Wilcox , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:54163 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933650AbWKQPIF (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:08:05 -0500 To: Dave Kleikamp In-Reply-To: <1163775685.17280.13.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 09:01 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > Wouldn't you only be able to only crack a few of the low-order bits due > to a cluster of inodes being sequential? I don't think you'd be able > crack enough of it to be useful. You may be able to determine where > some inodes are relative to others, but I don't think you'd be able to > point the their location in memory. I don't know anything about crypto, > so I could be wrong. > On a 64-bit kernel, that would be the case. On a 32-bit kernel, there are no high order bits to chop off, so this would effectively give you the address. -- Jeff