linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] unionfs: build fixes

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:	Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:22:16 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	ezk@...sunysb.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	unionfs@...esystems.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] unionfs: build fixes

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:12:47 +0100 (BST)
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote:

> Get unionfs building and working in mmotm with the 2.6.27-rc1 VFS changes:
> permission() has been replaced by inode_permission() without nameidata arg;
> unionfs_permission() without nameidata arg; vfs_symlink() without mode arg;
> LOOKUP_ACCESS no longer defined; and kmem_cache_create() no longer passes
> kmem_cachep to the init_once() constructor.
> 
> Note: while okay for inclusion in -mm for now, unionfs_permission() mods
> will need review and perhaps correction by Erez: without a nameidata arg,
> some locking vanishes from unionfs_permission(), and a MNT_NOEXEC check on
> its lower_inode; I have not studied the VFS changes enough to tell whether
> that amounts to a real issue for unionfs, or just removal of dead code.

thanks.

> This should follow git-unionfs.patch
> I notice my unionfs-fix-memory-leak.patch
> and fsstack-fsstack_copy_inode_size-locking.patch
> are currently commented out, yet I don't recall the
> mm-commits dispatch rider bringing me a telegram to explain why?

git-unionfs got commented out because of some upstream git (or build)
catastrophe.  So its fixes got comemnted out too.  Then git-unionfs was
restored but I forgot to manually restore the followon fixes.  It
happens.

I must say that I'm not really sure why we're struggling along with
unionfs.  Last I heard there were fundamental, unresolveable design
disagreements with the VFS guys.  Those issues should be where 100% of
the effort is being devoted, but instead we seem to be cruising along
in a different direction?

--
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/