linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ubifs: Remove dead xattr code

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: <55D57791.4000302@nod.at>
Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:45:37 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Subodh Nijsure <snijsure@...d-net.com>,
	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
	Brad Mouring <brad.mouring@...com>,
	Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@...com>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ubifs: Remove dead xattr code

Am 20.08.2015 um 04:48 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
> On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> This is a partial revert of commit d7f0b70d30ffb9bbe6b8a3e1035cf0b79965ef53
>> ("UBIFS: Add security.* XATTR support for the UBIFS").
> 
> Hi Richard,
>     What about a full reverting of this commit. In ubifs, we
> *can* support any namespace of xattr including user, trusted, security
> or other anyone prefixed by any words. But we have a check_namespace()
> in xattr.c to limit what we want to support. That said, if we want to
> "Add security.* XATTR support for the UBIFS", what we need to do is
> just extending the check_namespace() to allow security namespace pass.
> And yes, check_namespace() have been supporting security namespace.

You're right. I thought/hoped we can re-use some parts of it.
Se let's do a full revert. I'll send a v2 patch in a jiffy.

> So, IMHO, we do not depend on the generic mechanism at all, and we can
> fully revert this commit.
> 
> But strange to me, why we picked this commit for ubifs? Artem, is there
> something I am missing?

TBH, I fear nobody noticed. :(

Thanks,
//richard
--
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/