linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] fuse: handle release synchronously (v4)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:55:07 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@...allels.com>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	"open list:FUSE: FILESYSTEM..." <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	avati@...ster.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fuse: handle release synchronously (v4)

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@...allels.com> wrote:
>
> There is a long-standing demand for synchronous behaviour of fuse_release:

That's just complete bullshit.

The fact is, release() is not synchronous. End of story.

If you want to catch "close()" synchronously, you use flush(). The two
are NOT the same, and never will be, and never should be confused.

"release()" happens at some random time (but only once), and cannot
return an error.

"flush()" happens synchronously at close() time, and can return an error.

Anybody who confuses the two is *wrong*.

It sounds like somebody wants to use "flush()" in fuse.  But please
don't mistake that for "release". It's different.

So please kill this "FOPEN_SYNC_RELEASE" thing with fire. It's crazy,
it's wrong, it's stupid. It must die.

               Linus
--
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/