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]

Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:31:49 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.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

Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 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?
> 
> Does this patch looks like what you are describing ?

Yeah, something like that.  With looping for all the inodes added, it
looks like it will work fine.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/