linux-kernel - Re: Unchecked flags in statx(2) [Should be fixed before 4.11-final?]

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: <E9E3131F-5350-4828-8C22-0979273F94B4@dilger.ca>
Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:16:38 -0600
From:   Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: Unchecked flags in statx(2) [Should be fixed before 4.11-final?]

On Apr 21, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <mtk.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> On 04/21/2017 03:01 PM, David Howells wrote:
>> Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <mtk.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> (3) There's no problem with asking for extra bits, even if the running
>>     kerneldoes not support them, because the kernel tells you in its
>>     response what fields it actually gave you.
> 
> It's this piece that I overlooked. Makes sense, of course.
> Sorry for the noise!

I agree with David that we don't want to return an error if the application
asks for more bits than the kernel supports, otherwise the interface would
be useless.

Maybe this implies that this needs to be explained more clearly in the
statx man page?

Cheers, Andreas






Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (196 bytes)