| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:40 -0700 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/20] sysfs: Handle the general case of removing of directories with subdirectories Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes: > Well, it can be trivially fixed by checking the removed flag. The > add/rm thing is designed to help additions and removals of multiple > nodes at one go and I'd really like to see it working that way. Any > chance you can change code toward that direction? Yes. We definitely need to check the removed flag in sysfs_add_one. Regardless of anything else. I need to sleep on this but I am inclined to get rid of the rest of the complications simply by failing the removal of non-empty directories. Going through the upper layers and making them properly responsible for their actions. I am afraid friendlier in this circumstance might equate to easier to misuse and let code bugs pile up. Eric -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists