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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1429798187.2170.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:09:47 -0700
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	"Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>
Cc:	Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
	"Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>,
	Roy Franz <roy.franz@...aro.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] efi: an sysfs interface for user to update efi
 firmware

On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 08:30 +0000, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Bottomley [mailto:James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:19 PM
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, I think we've all agreed we can do it ... it's now a question of whether we
> > can stomach the ick factor of actually initiating a transaction in close ... I'm still
> > feeling queasy.
> 
> The file "close" here can I understand that the file system will call the "release"
> function at the file_operations struct?
> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/fs.h#L1538
> 
> So, James you are meaning that we could initiating the update transaction
> inside the f_ops->release() and return the error code if update failed in this
> function?

Well, that's what I was thinking.  However the return value of ->release
doesn't get propagated in sys_close (or indeed anywhere ... no idea why
it returns an int) thanks to the task work additions, so we'd actually
have to use the operation whose value is propagated in sys_close() which
turns out to be flush.

James


--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ