linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] w1: refcnt fix, skip non-error send, docs

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: <9071391471978@web15j.yandex.ru>
Date:	Tue, 04 Feb 2014 03:59:38 +0400
From:	"zbr@...emap.net" <zbr@...emap.net>
To:	David Fries <david@...es.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] w1: refcnt fix, skip non-error send, docs

Hi

03.02.2014, 05:15, "David Fries" <David@...es.net>:

>  I could submit these patches as in, which would require the previous
>  set, or I could merge the documentation into the previous set and
>  resubmit them all since they haven't made it into the kernel tree yet.
>  Opinions?
>
>  Here's a small refcnt fix, skipping sending non-error messages, and
>  documentation and comment updates.
>
>  non-error error messages:
>  Currently every master or slave command is sending a response with
>  w1_netlink_send_error no matter if there is an error or not.  This
>  makes commands like list slaves W1_CMD_LIST_SLAVES or W1_CMD_READ
>  return two messages, one with data and one without.  That is a problem
>  with the list slaves because they are identical except for one having
>  data and one not, and since there could be no slaves known to the
>  kernel you can't just discard the no data case, unless the program
>  were to expect two replies.  So I propose only sending the error reply
>  if there is an error, in which case there wouldn't be a normal reply
>  (such as read).  This would mean commands like write would no longer
>  return a response unless there was an error.  If an application wanted
>  to verify the kernel received the write message it could follow it by
>  a read to verify the data or just that read came after write and had a
>  response so write must have completed without error.  I think it is
>  safe to do away with the extra replies.  If someone sees a big enough
>  need for this, I could modify it so all commands return one response,
>  with commands like write always calling send error even if there
>  wasn't one.

I created this protocol to handle cases like nothing is returned, but yet userspace knows
operations has been completed. Also, you can not really change it at this time - there are
already userspace application which may depend on the last ack to find out its request completed.

Reference counter fix is correct, please submit it in the separate patch.
--
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/