linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nfsd: Make creates return EEXIST correctly instead of EPERM

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: <BC2500DE-9763-4D97-9618-C7548D0807F7@linuxhacker.ru>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jul 2016 22:58:38 -0400
From:	Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: Make creates return EEXIST correctly instead of EPERM


On Jul 8, 2016, at 10:52 PM, Al Viro wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:59:50AM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> 
>> "If path names a symbolic link, mkdir() shall fail and set errno to [EEXIST]."
>> 
>> This sounds pretty straightforward to me, no?
>> Since it does not matter that we do not have write permissions here, because
>> the name already exists.
> 
> When more than one condition applies, we have every right to return any of
> them.  POSIX does *NOT* specify the order of checks.  Never had.

Out of curiosity, why does filename_create() delay EROFS then?