linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix proc_file

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: <20090912152814.GG5858@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:28:14 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix proc_file_write missing ppos update

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 09:05:44PM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Switching all users of read_proc_t/write_proc_t to file operation is a
> huge job. About 180 files must be fixed.
> 
> But the main reason not to do this is because the breakage of "out of
> tree" drivers.

> I like the current simplified proc interface. It saves a lot of code
> duplication because the basic operations will be handled inside the
> kernel and not in the driver.

_What_ code duplication?  Would that be
        struct proc_dir_entry *pde = PDE(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode);
and calculation of pde->data currently done by proc_file_write()?
Pardon me, but that's hard to take seriously.  As for the ->read() side,
most of those suckers end up switched to use of seq_read() and there's
not a lot of boilerplate code in the resulting variants...
--
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/