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: 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists