linux-kernel - Re: add file system helpers that take kernel pointers for the init code 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: <20200726155204.GA24103@lst.de>
Date:   Sun, 26 Jul 2020 17:52:04 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: add file system helpers that take kernel pointers for the init
 code v3

On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 08:49:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 12:14 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Al and Linus,
> >
> > currently a lot of the file system calls in the early in code (and the
> > devtmpfs kthread) rely on the implicit set_fs(KERNEL_DS) during boot.
> > This is one of the few last remaining places we need to deal with to kill
> > off set_fs entirely, so this series adds new helpers that take kernel
> > pointers.  These helpers are in init/ and marked __init and thus will
> > be discarded after bootup.  A few also need to be duplicated in devtmpfs,
> > though unfortunately.
> 
> I see nothing objectionable here.
> 
> The only bikeshed comment I have is that I think the "for_init.c" name
> is ugly and pointless - I think you could just call it "fs/init.c" and
> it's both simpler and more straightforward. It _is_ init code, it's
> not "for" init.

That was Al's suggestion.  I personally don't care, so if between the
two of you, you can come up with a preferred choice I'll switch to it.