linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.5

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: <CAK8P3a2rrTN=ZED4pHX1WLCV+RUitN3G5XKSt5ZC20TUoB_TZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Dec 2019 21:46:45 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.5

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:59 AM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:22:31PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yeah, that looks correct to me.  Stephen's solution backed out the
> changes that Arnd made for the !x86_64 compat ioctl case, so I or
> someone would have had to re-apply them.
>
> > There was some other minor difference too, but it's also possible I
> > could have messed up, so cc'ing Stephen and Arnd on this just in case
> > they have comments.
>
> <nod> Thanks for sorting this out.

Yes, this is the right solution. Note that this part of the series originally
came from Al Viro, but I added more patches following the same idea.

While working on a follow-up series, I now also noticed that the
FS_IOC_RESVSP compat handler has always been broken for
x32 user space. I don't think anyone cares, but my series in [1]
addresses this as well by handling FS_IOC_RESVSP/
FS_IOC_UNRESVSP/FS_IOC_ZERO_RANGE on x86-64 as
well, in addition to FS_IOC_RESVSP_32 etc.

       Arnd

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/playground.git
compat-ioctl-endgame