linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/18] fsinfo: Provide notification overrun handling support [ver #21]

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:   Tue, 4 Aug 2020 15:56:41 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        raven@...maw.net, mszeredi@...hat.com, christian@...uner.io,
        jannh@...gle.com, darrick.wong@...cle.com, kzak@...hat.com,
        jlayton@...hat.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/18] fsinfo: Provide notification overrun handling
 support [ver #21]

On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 02:37:50PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Provide support for the handling of an overrun in a watch queue.  In the
> event that an overrun occurs, the watcher needs to be able to find out what
> it was that they missed.  To this end, previous patches added event
> counters to struct mount.

So this is optimizing the buffer overrun case?

Shoun't we just make sure that the likelyhood of overruns is low and if it
happens, just reinitialize everthing from scratch (shouldn't be *that*
expensive).

Trying to find out what was missed seems like just adding complexity for no good
reason.