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  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]
Date:	Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:38:28 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <>
Cc:	Maxim Patlasov <>,
	Anand Avati <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Michael j Theall <>,
	fuse-devel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fuse: handle release synchronously (v4)

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Miklos Szeredi <> wrote:
> And what you don't get is that there's a deep difference between those
> and the /proc file access case.

No there isn't.

Your "action by the holder" argument is pure and utter garbage, for a
very simple and core reason: the *filesystem* doesn't know or care. So
from a fuse standpoint, the difference is totally and entirely

Your "synchronous fput" fails. It fails totally regardless of that
"who incremented the file user count" issue. Face it, your patch is
broken. And it's *fundamentally* broken, which is why I'm so tired of
your stupid ad-hoc hacks that cannot possibly work.

Your umount EBUSY case is somewhat relevant to the "who holds the file
open", but quite frankly, that's not a filesystem issue, it's more of
a system management issue. So umount might get EBUSY. That's not
something the filesystem should/could care about, that's a MIS issue
that is entirely irrelevant, and the answer is "if somebody does lsof,
that might keep the filesystem busy". Tough.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists