linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] vfs: new 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:48:28 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc:	miklos@...redi.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vfs: new O_NODE open flag

[Ridiculous cc list cleaned]

> > udev defends against it with the specific knowledge that any existing
> > open means the device is open and cannot be unloaded. The combination is
> > required (and some other happenstance properties).
> 
> You're still missing the point.  O_NODE is like a hard link, except
> the reference doesn't come from the filesystem but from a file
> descriptor.  From udev's perspective there's no difference.

I don't think I am missing the point here. You have a reference to an
object in the fs but you don't have a reference to the driver underneath
s the driver can change on you *while* you have the O_NODE open and fd
live. That cannot happen with a hard link and open.

It isn't the same thing as far as I can see. You don't have the barrier
between the operations that occurs in the real open/close case because
they lock the driver.
--
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/