| 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: <CAH_=xoatr9QcbLkk7Uf0eidoorNxCMqV8apr1wpqRhx5jHFHrg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:12:32 -0700 From: Eric Rannaud <e@...ocritical.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O_TMPFILE|..., 0) with mode 0 On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Eric Rannaud <e@...ocritical.com> wrote: >> Yes, there definitely is a glibc bug: a fix is being worked on and it >> looks like it will go in. The change replaces the test for O_CREAT by >> a test for either O_CREAT or O_TMPFILE. > > Why not just do it unconditionally? There really is no downside. Doing > it conditionally only makes the generated code slower and mode > complex. For absolutely zero gain, as far as I can tell. Does any > architecture actually do anything wrong? The immediate answer is "to keep the diff minimal". But I'll ask. -- Eric Rannaud <e@...ocritical.com> Nanocritical, CEO -- 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