linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH][RFC] dm: Do not open log and cow device read-write for read-only mappings

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]

Date:	Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:12:28 +0100
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>
Cc:	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tao Ma <tm@....ma>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH][RFC] dm: Do not open log and cow device
 read-write for read-only mappings

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 05:05:48PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote:
> On 02/15/2011 04:50 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> That's why I'm arguing EACCES is not a good error to return and EROFS is
> >> more appropriate.
> > 
> > Frankly, I don't really mind one way or the other but EROFS isn't
> > usually used in those areas.  It might make sense for this use case
> > and then there will be cases it just feels awkward.  This being a dm
> > thing, wouldn't it be just better to let dm massage the return value?
> 
> It is not DM thing. That code was checking for generic block device.
> No DM there (it was from cryptsetup code but not related to DM part).

Hmmm... I'm confused now.  Where was that -EROFS from then?  I don't
recall changing -EROFS to -EACCES.  What did I miss?

-- 
tejun
--
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/