linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: fixes for 5.3-rc5

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: <CAHk-=wgJm9OEfJ1gL66jzXsavhXxJCmu9g9jWCCeQPcsFVSO7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:33:37 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: fixes for 5.3-rc5

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:05 PM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW I've wondered off and on if the VFS syscalls should be generating
> some kind of audit trail when something returns an error message to
> userspace?

I don't think it makes sense for any random errors. ENOENT / EPERM /
EACCES / EISDIR etc are generally part of normal operation and
expected.

Things like actual filesystem corruption is different, but we haven't
really had good patterns for it. And I'd hate to add something like a
test for -EFSCORRUPTED when it's so rare. It makes more sense to do
any special handling when that is actually detected (when you might
want to do other things too, like make the filesystem be read-only or
whatever)

             Linus