linux-kernel - Re: [patch 25/26] mount options: fix udf

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]

Message-Id: <E1JIR8n-0002Ec-MY@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:10:53 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	jack@...e.cz
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, gorcunov@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 25/26] mount options: fix udf

> On Fri 25-01-08 16:50:15, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > > | +	/* is this correct? */
> > > > > | +	if (sbi->s_anchor[2] != 0)
> > > > > | +		seq_printf(seq, ",anchor=%u", sbi->s_anchor[2]);
> > > > > 
> > > > > you know, I would prefer to use form UDF_SB_ANCHOR(sb)[2]
> > > > > in sake of style unification but we should wait for Jan's
> > > > > decision (i'm not the expert in this area ;)
> > > > 
> > > > I think UDF_SB_ANCHOR macro was removed by some patch in -mm.
> > >   Yes, it's going to be removed so don't use it. Actually, basing this
> > > patch on top of -mm is a good idea because there are quite some changes
> > > in Andrew's queue.
> > > 
> > > > I'm more interested if the second element of the s_anchor array really
> > > > does always have the value of the 'anchor=N' mount option.  I haven't
> > > > been able to verify that fully.  Do you have some insight into that?
> > >   As Cyrill wrote, it could be zeroed out in case there is no anchor in
> > > the specified block. So I guess you have to store the passed value
> > > somewhere else..
> > 
> > But in that case, would the value of the anchor= option matter?
>   No, it would not.
> 
> > This is actually a somewhat philosophical question about what the
> > mount options in /proc/mounts mean:
> > 
> >  1) Options _given_ by the user for the mount
> >  2) Options which are _effective_ for the mount
> > 
> > If we take interpretation 2) and there was no anchor (whatever that
> > means), then the anchor=N option wasn't effective, and not giving it
> > would have had the same effect.
> > 
> > This could be confusing to the user, though...
>   Hmm, given that options are modified by remount for some filesystems,
> it's probably the best to display the effective state. So your code should
> display the right thing as it is.

OK.  Cyrill, Jan, thanks for the reviews.

Miklos
--
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/