linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCHSET] sanitized pathwalk machinery (v3)

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: <20200302003926.GM23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 2 Mar 2020 00:39:26 +0000
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>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHSET] sanitized pathwalk machinery (v3)

On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 04:34:06PM -0600, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 3:51 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >         Extended since the last repost.  The branch is in #work.dotdot;
> > #work.do_last is its beginning (about 2/3 of the total), slightly
> > reworked since the last time.
> 
> I'm traveling, so only a quick read-through.
> 
> One request: can you add the total diffstat to the cover letter (along
> with what you used as a base)?

Sure, no problem (and the base is still -rc1)

> I did apply it to a branch just to look
> at it more closely, so I can see the final diffstat that way:
> 
>  Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst |    7 +-
>  fs/autofs/dev-ioctl.c                     |    6 +-
>  fs/internal.h                             |    1 -
>  fs/namei.c                                | 1333 +++++++++------------
>  fs/namespace.c                            |   96 +-
>  fs/open.c                                 |    4 +-
>  include/linux/namei.h                     |    4 +-
>  7 files changed, 642 insertions(+), 809 deletions(-)
> 
> but it would have been nice to see in your explanation too.
> 
> Anyway, from a quick read-through, I don't see anything that raises my
> hackles - you've fixed the goto label naming, and I didn't notice
> anything else odd.
> 
> Maybe that was because I wasn't careful enough. But the final line
> count certainly speaks for the series..

Heh...  Part of my metrics is actually "how large a sheet of paper does
one need to fit the call graph on" ;-)

I hope it gets serious beating, though - it touches pretty much every
codepath in pathname resolution.  Is there any way to sic the bots on
a branch, short of "push it into -next and wait for screams"?