linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: register filesystem last

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: <20180328072657.GA2063@avx2>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:26:57 +0300
From:   Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: register filesystem last

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 05:48:23AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 03:06:34AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 02:49:38PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 01:27:09 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > As soon as register_filesystem() exits, filesystem can be mounted.
> > > > It is better to present fully operational /proc.
> > > > 
> > > > Of course it doesn't matter because /proc is not modular
> > > > but do it anyway.
> > > > 
> > > > Drop error check, it should be handled by panicking.
> > > 
> > > So... shouldn't we add a call to panic()?
> > 
> > via FS_PANIC flag, yes. I have a patch somewhere.
> > There are 104 filesystems ATM, some internal, some not.
> > Some modular, some not.
> 
> You do realize that the only case when register_filesystem() fails is
> "another driver has already registered filesystem type with the same
> name"?  Is there *ever* a case when
> 	* you could expect that to happen and
> 	* panic would be a sane response?

It is for standartizing all those error checks in init sequence by
removing them. Modules won't have FS_PANIC.