linux-kernel - Re: Is VFS behavior fine?

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:18:44 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, ext-Adrian.Hunter@...ia.com
Subject: Re: Is VFS behavior fine?

Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> I may just say that I fixed this in UBIFS by not calling
>> 'd_splice_alias()' for not found dentries if the parent
>> directory inode has 'n_link' = 0. However, ext[23] always
>> call 'd_splice_alias()' for not found direntries (passing
>> NULL as the 'inode' parameter).
>>
>> Again, I am not 100% sure this is the right fix, because
>> I suspect this should be "fixed" in VFS. I tried to do this
>> and I have a small VFS patch, but it is probably incorrect.
> 
> The correct fix IMO is to make lookup return ENOENT on an IS_DEADDIR()
> inode, before even trying to create the child dentry.

Sounds correct, thanks for the replay.

> Untested patch attached.

Looks fine. Tried it, looks fine and solves my problem. Ran some
of my tests and they did not fail.

Hopefully this patch will make his way to mainline. Thanks.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
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/