linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] fuse2fs: open read-only when ro option and image non-writable

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251017232850.GJ6170@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 16:28:50 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: Dave Dykstra <dwd@...n.ch>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave Dykstra <2129743+DrDaveD@...rs.noreply.github.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse2fs: open read-only when ro option and image
 non-writable

On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 03:48:32PM -0500, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 03:14:50PM -0500, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 12:24:56PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> ...
> > > > +	ret = 4;
> > > 
> > > Why 4?  Is this an internal mount bug?
> > 
> > I was just guessing; I didn't know what the bits meant.  Where are they
> > documented?  All I knew was that it needed to not include the "& 1" bit
> > which was included with "ret = 3" because that printed an erroneous
> > error just after the "out" label.
> 
> Oh, it's supposed to follow the return codes from mount(8).  I think
> ret = 2 is most appropriate then.

Could you please spend more time understanding the context in which fuse
servers operate, particularly when they're called as mount(8) helpers?

--D

> Dave
> 
>