[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1II8Nw-0005XH-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:37:00 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: trond.myklebust@....uio.no
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, jlayton@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
codalist@...emann.coda.cs.cmu.edu, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, zippel@...ux-m68k.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, joel.becker@...cle.com, wli@...omorphy.com,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, jffs-dev@...s.com,
user-mode-linux-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
bfennema@...con.csc.calpoly.edu
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH 01/25] VFS: move attr_kill logic from
notify_change into helper function
> > Your patch is changing the API in a very unsafe way, since there will
> > be no error or warning on an unconverted fs. And that could lead to
> > security holes.
> >
> > If we would rename the setattr method to setattr_new as well as
> > changing it's behavior, that would be fine. But I guess we do not
> > want to do that.
>
> Which "unconverted fses"? If we're talking out of tree stuff, then too
> bad: it is _their_ responsibility to keep up with kernel changes.
It is usually a good idea to not change the semantics of an API in a
backward incompatible way without changing the syntax as well.
This is true regardless of whether we care about out-of-tree code or
not (and we should care to some degree). And especially true if the
change in question is security sensitive.
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists