All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lawrence Greenfield <leg@google.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, joel.becker@oracle.com, cmm@us.ibm.com,
	cluster-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:13:42 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimwmJ_ZoE9oAuA1WGhCgK585jDznqnc6k0=9Ntb@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101109234049.GQ2715@dastard>

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrot=
e:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:41:47PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:42:42PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> > Implementation is up to the filesystem. However, XFS does (b)
>> > because:
>> >
>> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 1) it was extremely simple to implement (one of the
>> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0advantages of having an exceedingly com=
plex allocation
>> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0interface to begin with :P)
>> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 2) conversion is atomic, fast and reliable
>> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 3) it is independent of the underlying storage; and
>> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 4) reads of unwritten extents operate at memory spee=
d,
>> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0not disk speed.
>>
>> Yeah, I was thinking that using a device-style TRIM might be better
>> since future attempts to write to it won't require a separate seek t=
o
>> modify the extent tree. =C2=A0But yeah, there are a bunch of advanta=
ges of
>> simply mutating the extent tree.
>>
>> While we're on the subject of changes to fallocate, what do people
>> think of FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA, which requires either root
>> privileges or (if capabilities are in use) CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE &&
>> CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE && CAP_SYS_ADMIN. =C2=A0This would allow a trusted =
process
>> to fallocate blocks with the extent already marked initialized. =C2=A0=
I've
>> had two requests for such functionality for ext4 already.
>
> We removed that ability from XFS about three years ago because it's
> a massive security hole. e.g. what happens if the file is world
> readable, even though the process that called
> FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA was privileged and was allowed to expose
> such data? Or the file is chmod 777 after being exposed?
>
> The historical reason for such behaviour existing in XFS was that in
> 1997 the CPU and IO latency cost of unwritten extent conversion was
> significant, so users with real physical security (i.e. marines with
> guns) were able to make use of fast preallocation with no conversion
> overhead without caring about the security implications. These days,
> the performance overhead of unwritten extent conversion is minimal -
> I generally can't measure a difference in IO performance as a result
> of it - so there is simply no good rea=D1=95on for leaving such a gap=
ing
> security hole in the system.
>
> If anyone wants to read the underlying data, then use fiemap to map
> the physical blocks and read it directly from the block device. That
> requires root privileges but does not open any new stale data
> exposure problems....
>
>> (Take for example a trusted cluster filesystem backend that checks t=
he
>> object checksum before returning any data to the user; and if the
>> check fails the cluster file system will try to use some other repli=
ca
>> stored on some other server.)
>
> IOWs, all they want to do is avoid the unwritten extent conversion
> overhead. Time has shown that a bad security/performance tradeoff
> decision was made 13 years ago in XFS, so I see little reason to
> repeat it for ext4 today....

I'd make use of FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA. It's not the CPU overhead
of extent conversion. It's that extent conversion causes more metadata
operations than what you'd have otherwise, which means systems that
want to use O_DIRECT and make sure the data doesn't go away either
have to write O_DIRECT|O_DSYNC or need to call fdatasync().

cluster file system implementor,
Larry

>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4"=
 in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at =C2=A0http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.ht=
ml
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" =
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lawrence Greenfield <leg@google.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, joel.becker@oracle.com, cmm@us.ibm.com,
	cluster-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:13:42 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimwmJ_ZoE9oAuA1WGhCgK585jDznqnc6k0=9Ntb@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101109234049.GQ2715@dastard>

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:41:47PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:42:42PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> > Implementation is up to the filesystem. However, XFS does (b)
>> > because:
>> >
>> >     1) it was extremely simple to implement (one of the
>> >        advantages of having an exceedingly complex allocation
>> >        interface to begin with :P)
>> >     2) conversion is atomic, fast and reliable
>> >     3) it is independent of the underlying storage; and
>> >     4) reads of unwritten extents operate at memory speed,
>> >        not disk speed.
>>
>> Yeah, I was thinking that using a device-style TRIM might be better
>> since future attempts to write to it won't require a separate seek to
>> modify the extent tree.  But yeah, there are a bunch of advantages of
>> simply mutating the extent tree.
>>
>> While we're on the subject of changes to fallocate, what do people
>> think of FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA, which requires either root
>> privileges or (if capabilities are in use) CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE &&
>> CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE && CAP_SYS_ADMIN.  This would allow a trusted process
>> to fallocate blocks with the extent already marked initialized.  I've
>> had two requests for such functionality for ext4 already.
>
> We removed that ability from XFS about three years ago because it's
> a massive security hole. e.g. what happens if the file is world
> readable, even though the process that called
> FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA was privileged and was allowed to expose
> such data? Or the file is chmod 777 after being exposed?
>
> The historical reason for such behaviour existing in XFS was that in
> 1997 the CPU and IO latency cost of unwritten extent conversion was
> significant, so users with real physical security (i.e. marines with
> guns) were able to make use of fast preallocation with no conversion
> overhead without caring about the security implications. These days,
> the performance overhead of unwritten extent conversion is minimal -
> I generally can't measure a difference in IO performance as a result
> of it - so there is simply no good reaѕon for leaving such a gaping
> security hole in the system.
>
> If anyone wants to read the underlying data, then use fiemap to map
> the physical blocks and read it directly from the block device. That
> requires root privileges but does not open any new stale data
> exposure problems....
>
>> (Take for example a trusted cluster filesystem backend that checks the
>> object checksum before returning any data to the user; and if the
>> check fails the cluster file system will try to use some other replica
>> stored on some other server.)
>
> IOWs, all they want to do is avoid the unwritten extent conversion
> overhead. Time has shown that a bad security/performance tradeoff
> decision was made 13 years ago in XFS, so I see little reason to
> repeat it for ext4 today....

I'd make use of FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA. It's not the CPU overhead
of extent conversion. It's that extent conversion causes more metadata
operations than what you'd have otherwise, which means systems that
want to use O_DIRECT and make sure the data doesn't go away either
have to write O_DIRECT|O_DSYNC or need to call fdatasync().

cluster file system implementor,
Larry

>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lawrence Greenfield <leg@google.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, joel.becker@oracle.com, cmm@us.ibm.com,
	cluster-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:13:42 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimwmJ_ZoE9oAuA1WGhCgK585jDznqnc6k0=9Ntb@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101109234049.GQ2715@dastard>

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:41:47PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:42:42PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> > Implementation is up to the filesystem. However, XFS does (b)
>> > because:
>> >
>> >     1) it was extremely simple to implement (one of the
>> >        advantages of having an exceedingly complex allocation
>> >        interface to begin with :P)
>> >     2) conversion is atomic, fast and reliable
>> >     3) it is independent of the underlying storage; and
>> >     4) reads of unwritten extents operate at memory speed,
>> >        not disk speed.
>>
>> Yeah, I was thinking that using a device-style TRIM might be better
>> since future attempts to write to it won't require a separate seek to
>> modify the extent tree.  But yeah, there are a bunch of advantages of
>> simply mutating the extent tree.
>>
>> While we're on the subject of changes to fallocate, what do people
>> think of FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA, which requires either root
>> privileges or (if capabilities are in use) CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE &&
>> CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE && CAP_SYS_ADMIN.  This would allow a trusted process
>> to fallocate blocks with the extent already marked initialized.  I've
>> had two requests for such functionality for ext4 already.
>
> We removed that ability from XFS about three years ago because it's
> a massive security hole. e.g. what happens if the file is world
> readable, even though the process that called
> FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA was privileged and was allowed to expose
> such data? Or the file is chmod 777 after being exposed?
>
> The historical reason for such behaviour existing in XFS was that in
> 1997 the CPU and IO latency cost of unwritten extent conversion was
> significant, so users with real physical security (i.e. marines with
> guns) were able to make use of fast preallocation with no conversion
> overhead without caring about the security implications. These days,
> the performance overhead of unwritten extent conversion is minimal -
> I generally can't measure a difference in IO performance as a result
> of it - so there is simply no good reaѕon for leaving such a gaping
> security hole in the system.
>
> If anyone wants to read the underlying data, then use fiemap to map
> the physical blocks and read it directly from the block device. That
> requires root privileges but does not open any new stale data
> exposure problems....
>
>> (Take for example a trusted cluster filesystem backend that checks the
>> object checksum before returning any data to the user; and if the
>> check fails the cluster file system will try to use some other replica
>> stored on some other server.)
>
> IOWs, all they want to do is avoid the unwritten extent conversion
> overhead. Time has shown that a bad security/performance tradeoff
> decision was made 13 years ago in XFS, so I see little reason to
> repeat it for ext4 today....

I'd make use of FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA. It's not the CPU overhead
of extent conversion. It's that extent conversion causes more metadata
operations than what you'd have otherwise, which means systems that
want to use O_DIRECT and make sure the data doesn't go away either
have to write O_DIRECT|O_DSYNC or need to call fdatasync().

cluster file system implementor,
Larry

>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lawrence Greenfield <leg@google.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
	cluster-devel@redhat.com, cmm@us.ibm.com,
	Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>,
	joel.becker@oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:13:42 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimwmJ_ZoE9oAuA1WGhCgK585jDznqnc6k0=9Ntb@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101109234049.GQ2715@dastard>

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:41:47PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:42:42PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> > Implementation is up to the filesystem. However, XFS does (b)
>> > because:
>> >
>> >     1) it was extremely simple to implement (one of the
>> >        advantages of having an exceedingly complex allocation
>> >        interface to begin with :P)
>> >     2) conversion is atomic, fast and reliable
>> >     3) it is independent of the underlying storage; and
>> >     4) reads of unwritten extents operate at memory speed,
>> >        not disk speed.
>>
>> Yeah, I was thinking that using a device-style TRIM might be better
>> since future attempts to write to it won't require a separate seek to
>> modify the extent tree.  But yeah, there are a bunch of advantages of
>> simply mutating the extent tree.
>>
>> While we're on the subject of changes to fallocate, what do people
>> think of FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA, which requires either root
>> privileges or (if capabilities are in use) CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE &&
>> CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE && CAP_SYS_ADMIN.  This would allow a trusted process
>> to fallocate blocks with the extent already marked initialized.  I've
>> had two requests for such functionality for ext4 already.
>
> We removed that ability from XFS about three years ago because it's
> a massive security hole. e.g. what happens if the file is world
> readable, even though the process that called
> FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA was privileged and was allowed to expose
> such data? Or the file is chmod 777 after being exposed?
>
> The historical reason for such behaviour existing in XFS was that in
> 1997 the CPU and IO latency cost of unwritten extent conversion was
> significant, so users with real physical security (i.e. marines with
> guns) were able to make use of fast preallocation with no conversion
> overhead without caring about the security implications. These days,
> the performance overhead of unwritten extent conversion is minimal -
> I generally can't measure a difference in IO performance as a result
> of it - so there is simply no good reaѕon for leaving such a gaping
> security hole in the system.
>
> If anyone wants to read the underlying data, then use fiemap to map
> the physical blocks and read it directly from the block device. That
> requires root privileges but does not open any new stale data
> exposure problems....
>
>> (Take for example a trusted cluster filesystem backend that checks the
>> object checksum before returning any data to the user; and if the
>> check fails the cluster file system will try to use some other replica
>> stored on some other server.)
>
> IOWs, all they want to do is avoid the unwritten extent conversion
> overhead. Time has shown that a bad security/performance tradeoff
> decision was made 13 years ago in XFS, so I see little reason to
> repeat it for ext4 today....

I'd make use of FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA. It's not the CPU overhead
of extent conversion. It's that extent conversion causes more metadata
operations than what you'd have otherwise, which means systems that
want to use O_DIRECT and make sure the data doesn't go away either
have to write O_DIRECT|O_DSYNC or need to call fdatasync().

cluster file system implementor,
Larry

>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2011-01-11 21:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-08 20:32 [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` [PATCH 2/6] XFS: handle hole punching via fallocate properly Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  1:22   ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  1:22     ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  2:05     ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  2:05       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  4:21       ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  4:21         ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-08 20:32 ` [PATCH 3/6] Ocfs2: " Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` [PATCH 4/6] Ext4: fail if we try to use hole punch Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` [PATCH 5/6] Btrfs: " Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 10:05   ` Will Newton
2010-11-09 10:05     ` Will Newton
2010-11-09 10:05     ` Will Newton
2010-11-09 10:05     ` Will Newton
2010-11-09 12:53     ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 12:53       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 12:53       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 12:53       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` [PATCH 6/6] Gfs2: " Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  1:12 ` [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  1:12   ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  2:10   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  2:10     ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  3:30   ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09  3:30     ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09  4:42     ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  4:42       ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  4:42       ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 21:41       ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09 21:41         ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09 21:53         ` Jan Kara
2010-11-09 21:53           ` [Cluster-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-11-09 21:53           ` Jan Kara
2010-11-09 23:40         ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 23:40           ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 23:40           ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 23:40           ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-11 21:13           ` Lawrence Greenfield [this message]
2011-01-11 21:13             ` Lawrence Greenfield
2011-01-11 21:13             ` Lawrence Greenfield
2011-01-11 21:13             ` Lawrence Greenfield
2011-01-11 21:30             ` Ted Ts'o
2011-01-11 21:30               ` Ted Ts'o
2011-01-12 11:48               ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 11:48               ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 11:48                 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 11:48                 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 12:44             ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 12:44               ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 18:13               ` Ric Wheeler
2011-01-28 18:13                 ` Ric Wheeler
2010-11-09 20:51   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 20:51     ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 Hole Punching V2 Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 11:16   ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:16     ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:43     ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:43       ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 12:52       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 12:52         ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 13:14         ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 13:14           ` Jan Kara
2010-11-17  0:22           ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17  0:22             ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17  2:11             ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-17  2:11               ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-17  2:28               ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17  2:28                 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17  2:34                 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17  2:34                   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17  9:30                   ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17  9:30                     ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17  9:19               ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17  9:19                 ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-16 12:53     ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 12:53       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-18  1:46 Hole Punching V3 Josef Bacik
2010-11-18  1:46 ` [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate Josef Bacik
2010-11-18  1:46   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-18  1:46   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-18 23:43   ` Jan Kara
2010-11-18 23:43     ` Jan Kara

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='AANLkTimwmJ_ZoE9oAuA1WGhCgK585jDznqnc6k0=9Ntb@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=leg@google.com \
    --cc=cluster-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=cmm@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=joel.becker@oracle.com \
    --cc=josef@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.