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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 07:50:25 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org, tyhicks@...onical.com, ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ecryptfs: add fadvise/set_flags calbacks On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 07:21:27PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > + if (ecryptfs_file_to_private(file)) > + lower_file = ecryptfs_file_to_lower(file); > + > + if (!lower_file || !lower_file->f_op) > + return rc; At least a file without f->f_op should never happen. How could ecryptfs not have a lower file here? > > + > + if (lower_file->f_op && lower_file->f_op->fadvise) > + rc = lower_file->f_op->fadvise(lower_file, offset, len, advice); > + else > + rc = generic_fadvise(lower_file, offset, len, advice); Seems like this should be in a vfs_fadvice helper. > + if (!rc) > + generic_fadvise(file, offset, len, advice); Setting the advice on both files seems odd. Which one do we actually need them on? > + if (lower_file->f_op && lower_file->f_op->set_flags) { > + rc = lower_file->f_op->set_flags(lower_file, > + flags & ECRYPTFS_FL_MASK); > + if (rc) > + return rc; > + } else > + generic_file_set_flags(file, flags & ECRYPTFS_FL_MASK); Seems like you want a vfs_set_flags again. -- 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