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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <54146D8D.9090708@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 18:15:09 +0200 From: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.debian@....de> To: Andrew Vagin <avagin@...allels.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> CC: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John McCutchan <john@...nmccutchan.com>, Robert Love <rlove@...ve.org>, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: don't remove inotify watchers from alive inode-s On Tue 09-09-14 02:27:12, Al Viro wrote: http://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/8/762 > I agree that it changes user-visible ABI and I agree the behavior > isn't really specified in the manpage. Shouldn't we start with putting the expected behavior into the manpage before patching the code? I am missing a patch for man7/inotify.7. On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:01:56PM +0400, Andrey Vagin wrote: http://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/8/219 > > fd = inotify_init1(IN_NONBLOCK); > deleted = open(path, O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0666); > link(path, path_link); > > wd_deleted = inotify_add_watch(fd, path_link, IN_ALL_EVENTS); > > unlink(path); > unlink(path_link); > > printf(" --- unlink\n"); > read_evetns(fd); > > close(deleted); > printf(" --- close\n"); > read_evetns(fd); > > Without this patch: > --- unlink > 4 (IN_ATTRIB) > 400 (IN_DELETE_SELF) > 8000 (IN_IGNORED) > --- close > FAIL > > With this patch: > --- unlink > 4 (IN_ATTRIB) > 400 (IN_DELETE_SELF) > --- close > 8 (IN_CLOSE_WRITE) > 400 (IN_DELETE_SELF) > 8000 (IN_IGNORED) > PASS Shouldn't the second IN_DELETE_SELF occur before --- close ? Why is IN_CLOSE_WRITE created? Best regards Heinrich Schuchardt -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists