linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] readlink cleanup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 11 Dec 2016 11:01:32 +0100
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] readlink cleanup

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 02:36:20AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> I'm still not sure what does "vfs: convert ->readlink to same signature as
>> ->get_link" buy us.  If anything, the result appears to be more complex -
>> you make freeing that buffer delayed (and introduce a dynamically allocated
>> buffer in one case that didn't use it)...

Normally readlink(2) calls ->get_link() except if there's
->readlink().  So there's no added complexity in handling the delayed
free since it's already there.  In fact it allows for removal of
complexity.

But I think the diffstat of that last part speaks for itself:

 11 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 110 deletions(-)

Btw, in the one case where we added the dynamically allocated buffer
it had been:

  - guess max link size to be 50 (very scientifically I'm sure, but no
explanation given)
  - call filler
  - hope it didn't get truncated

Which is now

  - call filler to allocate correctly sized buffer

Which isn't even much more complex.  So I don't buy your arguments.

Thanks,
Miklos