linux-kernel - Re: Upcoming: Notifications, FS notifications and fsinfo()

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:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:17:01 +0200
From:   Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>
To:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:     Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, dray@...hat.com,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, andres@...razel.de,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Subject: Re: Upcoming: Notifications, FS notifications and fsinfo()

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 04:30:24PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 05:12:23PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > BTW, while we are at it: one more thing I'd love to see exposed by
> > statx() is a simple flag whether the inode is a mount point. There's
> > plenty code that implements a test like this all over the place, and
> > it usually isn't very safe. There's one implementation in util-linux
> > for example (in the /usr/bin/mountpoint binary), and another one in
> > systemd. Would be awesome to just have a statx() return flag for that,
> > that would make things *so* much easier and more robust. because in
> > fact most code isn't very good that implements this, as much of it
> > just compares st_dev of the specified file and its parent. Better code
> > compares the mount ID, but as mentioned that's not as pretty as it
> > could be so far...
> 
> nfs-utils/support/misc/mountpoint.c:check_is_mountpoint() stats the file
> and ".." and returns true if they have different st_dev or the same
> st_ino.  Comparing mount ids sounds better.

BTW, this traditional st_dev+st_ino way is not reliable for bind mounts.
For mountpoint(1) we search the directory in /proc/self/mountinfo.

> So anyway, yes, everybody reinvents the wheel here, and this would be
> useful.

 +1

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak@...hat.com>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com