linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f7ea302d-2e17-b8bf-242e-fc06c4a0adcb@themaw.net>
Date:   Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:51:17 +0800
From:   Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        autofs mailing list <autofs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ondrej Holy <oholy@...hat.com>,
        Colin Walters <walters@...hat.com>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 09/08/17 16:39, David Howells wrote:
> Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
> 
>> In order to handle the AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT for both system calls the
>> negative dentry case in follow_automount() needs to be changed to
>> return ENOENT when the LOOKUP_AUTOMOUNT flag is clear (and the other
>> required flags are clear).
> 
> Should the be EREMOTE instead of ENOENT?

I thought about that and ended up thinking ENOENT was more sensible
but I'll look at it again.

Thanks
Ian