linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ceph: fix posix ACL hooks

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: <CA+55aFxc4p-v-0Mypygg5kH-0rN73zNFMgR0Hb3UFLRiMJbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:59:19 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@...tank.com>,
	Sage Weil <sage@...tank.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Guangliang Zhao <lucienchao@...il.com>,
	Li Wang <li.wang@...ntykylin.com>, zheng.z.yan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ceph: fix posix ACL hooks

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> What do you think? I guess this patch could be split up into two: one
> that does the "vfs_xyz()" helper functions, and another that does the
> inode_permission() change. I tied them together mainly because I
> started with the inode_permission() change, and that required the
> vfs_xyz() change.

Ok, this is the split-up. I haven't completed the "make allmodconfig"
for the first patch yet, so I might have split this wrong, but it was
fairly well separated and I'm pretty sure that this is fine.

I do actually agree that the second patch isn't exactly pretty.
Passing in both dentry and inode is redundant, and calling the
function "inode_permission()" is now a misnomer. But it makes it a lot
easier to see the differences this way in the diff (particularly
word-diff), so I think a renaming and/or dropping the inode parameter
would better be done as a separate patch anyway.

And no, as far as the first patch is concerned, I certainly wouldn't
hate dropping the first 'parent' argument from the vfs_xyzzy()
functions either, since that *should* be redundant, but quite frankly,
I didn't want to think too much about that, and this was the simple
conversions (and all callers were quite happy with dropping the inode
and replacing it with the dentry).

            Linus

Download attachment "vfs-function-cleanup" of type "application/octet-stream" (26901 bytes)

Download attachment "inode_permission-patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (42543 bytes)