| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1190037331.6700.14.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:55:31 -0400 From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, devel@...nvz.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Wake up mandatory locks waiter on chmod (v2) On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 12:13 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > When the process is blocked on mandatory lock and someone changes > the inode's permissions, so that the lock is no longer mandatory, > nobody wakes up the blocked process, but probably should. Please explain in more detail why we need this patch. I don't see why changing a file from taking mandatory locks to advisory locks is really a useful operation that we need to support. For one thing, we don't support changing a file from using advisory locking to mandatory locking on-the-fly. Secondly, changing the locking type certainly isn't a documented operation and quite frankly, it doesn't even appear to make sense: if the file needs mandatory locking, then that means that you have a need to protect against some untrusted application that isn't following the locking rules. Then suddenly, you declare that you will trust that application after all??? Cheers, Trond - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists