linux-kernel - Re: file locking fix for 3.2

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: <20111225000542.GS23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sun, 25 Dec 2011 00:05:42 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: file locking fix for 3.2

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 06:50:35PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

> Then you're returning -ENOMEM in a case when we really didn't need to do
> an allocation, but is that really a problem?  It's a rare case, and
> opens can already fail with -ENOMEM for other reasons, and I'd rather
> not have the extra hair.

I'm certainly OK with that variant; if the folks maintaining fs/locks.c
are happy with it, I'd suggest going for it.  Note that you don't need
to touch locks_conflict() call at all if you bail out early on allocation
failure and it's definitely simpler and cleaner that way.
--
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/