linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] overlayfs fix for 4.8-rc5

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

Date:   Fri, 9 Sep 2016 22:08:20 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] overlayfs fix for 4.8-rc5

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>>
>> This fixes a regression caused by the last pull request.
>
> So why are you checking error numbers one by one?
>
> Why is an error not just always an error?

The issue is that not all errors should result in failure.

That code tries to remove ACL from a directory, and there are several cases:

1) success: that's good obviously
2) error: no ACL was found: that's also good
3) error: ACL's are not supported by the filesystem: this is also good
4) error: ACL was there but we failed to remove it for some other
reason: this is not good

The patch adds handling of case 3.

Thanks,
Miklos