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

Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2017 21:19:31 +0200
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:     mtk.manpages@...il.com, 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?]

Hello Andreas,

On 04/21/2017 08:16 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> 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.

Yes, it's clear to me now.

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

Precisely; my thought also.

Cheers,

Michael 


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/