linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/24] nfs: check mnt instead of superblock directly

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]

Message-ID: <20070919173605.GP20917@infradead.org>
Date:	Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:36:05 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/24] nfs: check mnt instead of superblock directly

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:27:39AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> If we depend on the inodes for writeability, we will not
> catch the r/o mounts when implemented.
> 
> This patches uses __mnt_want_write().  It does not guarantee
> that the mount will stay writeable after the check.  But,
> this is OK for one of the checks because it is just for a
> printk().
> 
> The other two are probably unnecessary and duplicate existing
> checks in the VFS.  This won't make them better checks than
> before, but it will make them detect r/o mounts.

Ok from me, but can please get a nfs person to look over this
aswell?

-
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/