linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/nfs/inode.c: adjust code alignment

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: <1375714793.7337.12.camel@leira.trondhjem.org>
Date:	Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:59:55 +0000
From:	"Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
To:	Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
	Steve Dickson <steved@...hat.com>,
	David Quigley <dpquigl@...equigley.com>
CC:	"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/nfs/inode.c: adjust code alignment

On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 16:47 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
> 
> ---
> 
> This patch adjusts the code so that the alignment matches the current
> semantics.  I have no idea if it is the intended semantics, though.  Should
> the call to nfs_setsecurity also be under the else?
> 

>  fs/nfs/inode.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/inode.c b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> index af6e806..d8ad685 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ nfs_fhget(struct super_block *sb, struct nfs_fh
> *fh, struct nfs_fattr *fattr, st
>                 unlock_new_inode(inode);
>         } else
>                 nfs_refresh_inode(inode, fattr);
> -               nfs_setsecurity(inode, fattr, label);
> +       nfs_setsecurity(inode, fattr, label);
>         dprintk("NFS: nfs_fhget(%s/%Ld fh_crc=0x%08x ct=%d)\n",
>                 inode->i_sb->s_id,
>                 (long long)NFS_FILEID(inode),

Hi Julia,

Thanks for pointing this out! Given that the 'then' clause of the if
statement already calls nfs_setsecurity before unlocking the inode, I
suspect that the above _should_ really be part of the 'else' clause. 

That said, I can't see that calling nfs_setsecurity twice on the inode
can cause any unintended side-effects, so I suggest that we rather queue
the patch up for inclusion in 3.12.
Steve and Dave, any comments?

-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer

NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com
www.netapp.com