linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O

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, 30 Oct 2014 18:04:49 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric Rannaud <e@...ocritical.com>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O_TMPFILE|..., 0) with mode 0

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Eric Rannaud <e@...ocritical.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, there definitely is a glibc bug: a fix is being worked on and it
> looks like it will go in. The change replaces the test for O_CREAT by
> a test for either O_CREAT or O_TMPFILE.

Why not just do it unconditionally? There really is no downside. Doing
it conditionally only makes the generated code slower and mode
complex. For absolutely zero gain, as far as I can tell. Does any
architecture actually do anything wrong?

It's actually closer in spirit to the original "open()" model than the
existing code.

              Linus
--
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/