linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] fs,nfs: lift compat nfs4 mount data handling into the nfs code

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: <20200921064813.GB18559@lst.de>
Date:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 08:48:13 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] fs,nfs: lift compat nfs4 mount data handling into
 the nfs code

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 07:18:26PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 06:16:04PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:22:33AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > There is no reason the generic fs code should bother with NFS specific
> > > binary mount data - lift the conversion into nfs4_parse_monolithic
> > > instead.
> > 
> > Considering the size of struct compat_nfs4_mount_data_v1...  Do we really
> > need to bother with that "copy in place, so we go through the fields
> > backwards" logics?  Just make that
> > 
> > > +static void nfs4_compat_mount_data_conv(struct nfs4_mount_data *data)
> > > +{
> > 	struct compat_nfs4_mount_data_v1 compat;
> > 	compat = *(struct compat_nfs4_mount_data_v1 *)data;
> > and copy the damnt thing without worrying about the field order...
> 
> Maybe.  But then again why bother?  I just sticked to the existing
> code as much as possible.

Trond, Anna: what is your preference?