linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

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]

Message-ID: <CAJfpegvjM3Eh4ZPdepB240UyAVwca8qw+v4sGyEHRO1YBYyNSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:38:05 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:40 AM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
>>  /* These sb flags are internal to the kernel */
>>  #define MS_SUBMOUNT     (1<<26)
>> -#define MS_NOREMOTELOCK      (1<<27)
>>  #define MS_NOSEC     (1<<28)
>>  #define MS_BORN              (1<<29)
>>  #define MS_ACTIVE    (1<<30)
>
> Ummm...  Can MS_NOREMOTELOCK be removed?  I know it's listed in the internal
> flags section, but all of these have been exposed to userspace for over a
> year.  Ideally, I'd remove all of these from UAPI, but can anyone guarantee
> that no pieces of userspace refer to them?

The number of potential users of these flags is pretty low, so I think
we can try and remove them and hope nothing breaks.

Probably best left after the dust settles.

Thanks,
Miklos