linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 13/21] ext2: Remove ext2_xip_verify

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

Message-ID: <20141016214507.GI11522@wil.cx>
Date:	Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:45:07 -0400
From:	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 13/21] ext2: Remove ext2_xip_verify_sb()

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:18:02PM +0200, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 25-Sep-2014 04:33:30 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Jan Kara pointed out that calling ext2_xip_verify_sb() in ext2_remount()
> > doesn't make sense, since changing the XIP option on remount isn't
> > allowed.  It also doesn't make sense to re-check whether blocksize is
> > supported since it can't change between mounts.
> 
> By "doesn't make sense", do you mean it is never actually used, or that
> it is possible for a current user to trigger issues by changing XIP
> option on remount ? If it is the case, then this patch should probably
> be flagged as a "Fix".

I mean that we're checking for a condition that can't actually happen,
so it's safe to just delete the check.
--
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/