linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nfs3_list_one_acl(): check get_acl() result with IS_ERR_OR

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140727195041.GA11575@infradead.org>
Date:	Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:50:41 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrey Utkin <andrey.krieger.utkin@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs3_list_one_acl(): check get_acl() result with
 IS_ERR_OR_NULL

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:13:50AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Why are we not passing the error code back to the caller here in the
> case where we have one? One of the main purposes of returning an error
> in get_acl() is to ensure that we pass -EOPNOTSUPP if the operation
> fails due to lack of server support.

Do we really want to return EOPNOTSUPP from listxattr?  Seems like
simply not listing anything if the server doesn't support ACLs would
be the usual behaviour.  E.g. on local filesystems we'll also just get
back an empty list of xattrs if ACLs aren't supported and not other
attribute is set.

--
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/