linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/18] vfs: make no

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: <201007081518.28738.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:18:28 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:	jmorris@...ei.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] vfs: make no_llseek the default

On Thursday 08 July 2010, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> I see. [PATCH 16/18] ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/7/258 ) contains a line
> 
>    security/tomoyo/common.c                      |    1 +
> 
> but no change in the patch. Patch was too large?

Yes, the total patch is almost 200kb, which I considered too large.
I explained this in the changelog.

In retrospect, I probably should have sent it all anyway, because the
changelog is already very long and a few other people did not realize
this either because they did only read the patch but not the changelog.

As I mentioned to Boaz Harrosh, the full patch is available on
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/arnd/bkl.git;a=patch;h=dc731e01d2a08eb66ae08c226c97aa0cb8cf7b7f
and I'll send it out completely if I send out the series again.

I first want to make sure we have consensus on the semantic patch though.
In particular, I want to be sure everyone agrees on the following questions:

- should we kill default_llseek in favour of a more generic generic_file_llseek
  that also covers special files?
- if not, should default_llseek get renamed to something else?
- should I bother adding .llseek=no_llseek if we make that the default in the
  next step anyway?
- should I drop all the automatically generated comments?
- Do I need to split this patch up into per-maintainer chunks and send them
  through the individual trees, or do we just apply the semantic patch treewide
  at the end of the merge window?

	Arnd
--
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/