linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] bdi: add a ->dev_name field to struct backing_dev

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: <20200419075809.GA12222@lst.de>
Date:   Sun, 19 Apr 2020 09:58:09 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        axboe@...nel.dk, yuyufen@...wei.com, tj@...nel.org, tytso@....edu,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] bdi: add a ->dev_name field to struct
 backing_dev_info

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 08:40:20AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > This can have a sideeffect not only bdi->dev_name will be truncated to 64
> > chars (which generally doesn't matter) but possibly also kobject name will
> > be truncated in the same way.  Which may have user visible effects. E.g.
> > for fs/vboxsf 64 chars need not be enough. So shouldn't we rather do it the
> > other way around - i.e., let device_create_vargs() create the device name
> > and then copy to bdi->dev_name whatever fits?
> 
> How about using kvasprintf() instead of vsnprintf()?

That is what v1 did, see the thread in response to that on why it isn't
a good idea.