linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] st_nlink after rmdir() and rename()

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:	Thu, 3 Mar 2011 04:42:42 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] st_nlink after rmdir() and rename()

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 03:24:54AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 0 0: ext*, xfs, jfs, reiserfs, ocfs2, gfs2, nilfs, exofs, udf, ubifs,
>      minix, sysv, ufs, msdos, vfat, hfs+
> 0 1: ramfs, shmem, hugetlbfs, jffs2, omfs, hfs[*], apparently nfs as well

> [*] yes, different from hfs+; the code is clearly broken, since it simply
> does unlink() on target, without even verifying that it's empty.  And
> yes, it's trivial fs corruption...

Actually, hfs turns out to be 0 0 as well; it *is* broken (lacks check
for target being empty), but when the target is empty it's doing the
right thing.  jffs2 and ramfs-based ones do 0 1 - confirmed by direct
experiment.
--
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/