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]

Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 03:59:20 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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()

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 07:44:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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?

Umm...  Something like

These checks are better off in do_dentry_open(); the reason we couldn't
put them there used to be that callers couldn't tell what kind of cleanup
would do_dentry_open() failure call for.  Now that we have FMODE_OPENED,
cleanup is the same in all cases - it's simply fput().  So let's fold
that into do_dentry_open(), as Christoph's patch tried to.

perhaps?