linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] statx: Add a system call to make enhanced file info available [ver #3]

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]

Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2016 15:49:12 +0100
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] statx: Add a system call to make enhanced file info
 available [ver #3]

On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 04:38:05AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> I understand wanting to avoid extra arguments, but you are asking for trouble
>> with that sort of calling conventions.  Verifying that all call chains have
>> these fields initialized is bloody unpleasant and it *is* going to break,
>> especially since the rules are "you need to initialize it for vfs_xgetattr(),
>> but not for vfs_getattr()" - the names are similar enough for confusion,
>> and that's not the only such pair.
>
> FWIW, there's a bit of abuse of struct kstat in overlayfs object
> creation paths - for one thing, it ends up with a very small subset
> of struct kstat (mode + rdev), for another it also needs link in
> case of symlinks and ends up passing it separately.
>
> IMO it would be better to introduce a separate object for that; does anybody
> have objections to something like the patch below?  In principle, we might
> even lift that thing into general API and switch ->mkdir()/->mknod()/->symlink()
> to identical calling conventions.  Hell knows, perhaps ->create() as well...
> Comments?

Good cleanup.  Applied, thanks.

Miklos