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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 23:41:41 -0400 From: Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru> To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: Make creates return EEXIST correctly instead of EPERM On Jul 8, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:47:22PM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote: > >> I wonder if people just accept that "NFS is just weird" and code in workarounds, >> where as with Lustre we promise (almost) full POSIX compliance, and also came much later >> so people are just seeing that "this does not work" and complain more loudly? > > To quote POSIX: "If more than one error occurs in processing a function call, > any one of the possible errors may be returned, as the order of detection is > undefined." (from System Interfaces: General Information: 2.3 Error Numbers) > > And regarding mkdir(2) it has > [EACCES] > Search permission is denied on a component of the path prefix, or write > permission is denied on the parent directory of the directory to be created. > [EEXIST] > The named file exists. > among the error conditions. In situations when both apply, the implementation > is bloody well allowed to return either. It might be nicer to return EEXIST > in such cases, for consistency sake (if another thread does stat() on the > pathname in question just as you are about to call mkdir(2), you will get > EEXIST without ever reaching permission(9), let alone ->mkdir() method), but > please do not bring POSIX compliance as an argument. It's a QoI argument and > nothing beyond that. Ok, I see. Thanks. Bruce, do you want the patch resubmitted with a rewritten commit message, or do you think it's best to just drop it them?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists