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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <E1NHctp-00032C-A1@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:41:09 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, miklos@...redi.hu, luto@....edu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vfs: new O_NODE open flag

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
> The standard udev unload is a true open barrier so has an implicit
> revoke() caused by the fact you cannot keep a handle to the filename open
> during the udev sequence (or the old driver would be pinned by a refcount
> and not unload).

True, udev unload is an open barrier (modulo races), but O_NODE opens
simply don't matter in this respect, because they don't have anything
to do with the driver.

  ln /dev/foo /dev/shm/my_secret_device_link
  (foo is removed)
  open("/dev/shm/my_secret_device_link", O_RDWR)

How is this different than keeping the device open with O_NODE?

Thanks,
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/