linux-kernel - Re: [NFS] Increase size of struct fid raw buffer

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: <1207641005.3635.238.camel@quoit>
Date:	Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:50:05 +0100
From:	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [NFS] Increase size of struct fid raw buffer

Hi,

On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 08:54 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > 
> > GFS2 requires the NFS filehandle buffer to be larger than the
> > minimum size as per the bug report: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/24/374
> > Its a pretty trivial fix for now and I've done a test which shows
> > that it works ok.
> 
> I'm not seeing the point of this.
> 
> Every single instance of "struct fid" that I saw in a quick grep was 
> created not as a "struct fid", but as some other data structure that was 
> then cast to a "struct fid *".
> 
> So the _underlying_ size of "struct fid" seems to be pretty random, and 
> totally unrelated to this declaration.
> 
> But admittedly that really was just a quick grep, and maybe I missed 
> something. But it seems like this patch doesn't really change anything, 
> just largely makes a change in a structure that is apparently used as an 
> opaque pointer.
> 
> Is there anything that actually uses "struct fid" as an _allocation_ 
> entity?
> 
> And if not, then that "_u32 raw[6]" should probably be a un-sized "_u32 
> raw[]" instead, no?
> 
> 		Linus

I'm happy with that solution, although I'd assumed that the reason this
field had a size in the first place was that the NFS people had a plan
to use the structure as an allocation entity in the future. Can an NFS
developer please confirm/deny this?

If everybody is happy with the plan, then I'll send a patch to make the
change as you suggest shortly,

Steve.


--
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/