linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/11] sysfs: sysfs_chmod

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: <4860CEF2.4010003@fr.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:39:46 +0200
From:	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
CC:	Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] sysfs: sysfs_chmod_file handle multiple superblocks

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> I think it would be great if sysfs_chmod_file can do all-or-nothing
>>> instead of failing half way through but given the interface of
>>> notify_change(), it could be difficult to implement.  Any ideas?
>> Is it acceptable to queue the notifications in a list until we are in
>> the loop and loop again to notify when exiting the first loop without
>> error ?
> 
> Can you please take a look at the following patch?
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/24484
> 
> Which replaces notify_change() call to two calls to sysfs_setattr() and
> fsnotify_change().  The latter never fails and the former should always
> succeed if inode_change_ok() succeeds (inode_setattr() never fails
> unless the size is changing), so I think the correct thing to do is...
> 
> * Separate out sysfs_do_setattr() which doesn't do inode_change_ok() and
> just sets the attributes.  Making it a void function which triggers
> WARN_ON() when inode_setattr() fails would be a good idea.
> 
> * Implement sysfs_chmod_file() in similar way rename/move are
> implemented - allocate all resources and check conditions and then iff
> everything looks okay commit the operation by calling sysfs_do_setattr().
> 
> How does that sound?

Much better than my first proposition :)

I will do a separate patchset.

Thanks.
--
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/