linux-kernel - Re: splice vs O

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:	Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:04:10 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: splice vs O_APPEND

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I do wonder if we shouldn't just do this in rw_verify_area(). The whole 
> reason for that function is that we used to have all those flock checks 
> etc spread out all over, and some path would inevitably just miss one 
> check or another. It's kind of stupid to expect low-level filesystems to 
> do the IS_APPEND/IS_IMMUTABLE checks.

Do we expect them?  I thought we don't care if it's marked immutable
or append-only after the file has been opened, same as with normal
permissions.

> Comments?

Your patch still ignores O_APPEND, is that what we want?  It sounds
sort of strange.  pwrite() for example honors O_APPEND and ignores the
position, AFAICS.

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/