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]

Date:   Sun, 26 Jul 2020 17:21:13 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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 05:52:04PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

I can live with either variant; the only problem with fs/init.c is that
such name would imply the init code _of_ VFS, rather than VFS helpers for
init.

Anyway, the series looks generally sane; if no other objections are raised,
I'm adding it to vfs.git#for-next