linux-kernel - Re: [2.6 patch] make vfs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:22:45 -0500
From:	Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] make vfs_ioctl() static 

In message <20080217131839.GA11034@...radead.org>, Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:18:42AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > This patch makes the needlessly global vfs_ioctl() static.
> 
> I think the point was toa eventually export it for stackable filesystem
> use.  But until they start using it marking it static seems fine with
> me.

Right.  I'm not using it yet in unionfs, although I could; for now I'm just
calling very similar code myself.  This is only used in unionfs after I
process my own ioctls; IOW, I pass all unknown ioctls to the lower level and
let it handle it.

eCryptfs, however, doesn't pass unknown ioctls to the lower layer: it only
processes its own.

Honestly I'm not sure which is more appropriate: should a stackable f/s pass
unknown ioctls to the lower f/s or not?  If it doesn't, would any important
functionality be lost?

Erez.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/