linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.36-rc7

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: <201010071815.54303.tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Oct 2010 18:15:53 +0100
From:	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.36-rc7

On Thursday 07 Oct 2010 17:10:46 Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 Oct 2010 22:45:13 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > And yes, that's probably as exciting as it gets, which is just fine by
> > me. This should be the last -rc, I'm not seeing any reason to keep
> > delaying a real release. There was still more changes to
> > drivers/gpu/drm than I really would have hoped for, but they all look
> > harmless and good. Famous last words.
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> Please see http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=128618485204253&w=2
>
> I have sent this proposed bugfix several times now but no one is picking it
> up and Eric seems to have disappeared. It would be suboptimal to release
> 2.6.36 with a core fanotify feature non-functional.

Unfortunately I have another showstopper. Sadly I missed it until now because
internally we were more worried of issues which were kind of direct problems
for us and I went to deep instead of spending more time reviewing it breath
first.

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=08ae89380a8210a9965d04083e1de78cb8bca4b1

Priority argument was dropped from the fanotify_init syscall, and since it is
a syscall once released it is set in stone. Without the priority argument, how
are multiple clients supposed to be ordered?

Co-existence between multiple clients was something which was supposed to be
designed in from the start. Use cases like hierarchical storage management,
anti-malware and content indexing should all be able to co-exist. Without a
priority argument I do not see how it can be assured HSM sees the perm event
before anti-malware, and content indexing after both of them? If there was any
discussion about dropping priority I missed it. :(

Tvrtko

Sophos Plc, The Pentagon, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, United Kingdom.
Company Reg No 2096520. VAT Reg No GB 348 3873 20.
--
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/