linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6 v7] overlay filesystem

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: <20110322183919.GV22723@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:39:20 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	apw@...onical.com, nbd@...nwrt.org, neilb@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v7] overlay filesystem - request for inclusion

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:36:09AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> > Here's an updated version of the overlay filesystem. ?I'd like to
> > propose it for inclusion into mainline.
> 
> So on the whole it looked pretty small and simple. And most of the VFS
> level changes looked fine and I just reacted to the odd calling
> convention for open (I really think you should aim for ->open to have
> the basically same arguments as you made __dentry_open have: 'struct
> path', 'struct filp' and 'struct cred').
> 
> But I'd want Al's ack on the series. And also hear who uses it and how
> it's been tested?

To be honest, I *really* don't like to touch that before ->atomic_open()
is finished.  We are nearly there (the only remaining prereq is to sort out
revalidate vs. mountpoint crossing issues), so with any luck the neighborhood
of open() will be finished in for-next circa -rc3 or so.

As for the rest of it... I'll need to review that in details, but the first
impression from that code is that I don't like the way copyup is done.
Locking analysis would be really nice; AFAICS, it violates locking order
when called from e.g. ->setattr() and its protection against renames is
nowhere near enough.  I might be missing something subtle, but...
--
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/