linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 16/42] now we can fold open_check_o_direct() into do_dentry

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: <CA+55aFyoQkoRm5sGaXpxtrr8au1mgr1_+khY=St0o7NRd5qw8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:44:59 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 16/42] now we can fold open_check_o_direct() into do_dentry_open()

I like the patch, I hate the commit message.

It makes sense right now in this sequence, but I'd really like the
commit message to say _why_ this sequence led up to this point.

Right now I still remember you trying this, and having to revert it
because it didn't work before all the fput/put_filp issues. But a year
from now? Five years from now?

So at least a "now that fput() works regardless of how far the open
got.." kind of explanation, ok?

              Linus