linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2] vfs: make unlink() return ENOENT in preference to EROFS

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:	Mon, 6 Jun 2011 23:30:30 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lacombar@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] vfs: make unlink() return ENOENT in preference to
 EROFS

On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 04:58:13PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> If user space attempts to unlink a non-existent file, and the file
> system is mounted read-only, return ENOENT instead of EROFS.  Either
> error code is arguably valid/correct, but ENOENT is a more specific
> error message.

Umm...  I can live with that.  What about rmdir(2)?  We have similar situation
there as well.  If we care about one, why not the other?

Mind you, I'm not at all convinced that it matters enough to bother, but
yes, ENOENT is a bit more specific (and likelier to be handled by luserland
code).
--
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/