linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] overlayfs: Check writeback errors w.r.t upper in ->syncfs()

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87sg82n9p3.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date:   Sat, 19 Dec 2020 07:25:12 +1100
From:   NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To:     Jeffrey Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org,
        amir73il@...il.com, sargun@...gun.me, miklos@...redi.hu,
        willy@...radead.org, jack@...e.cz, neilb@...e.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] overlayfs: Check writeback errors w.r.t upper in
 ->syncfs()

On Fri, Dec 18 2020, Jeffrey Layton wrote:
>
> The patch we're discussing here _does_ add a f_op->syncfs, which is why
> I was suggesting to do it that way.

I haven't thought through the issues to decide what I think of adding a
new op, but I already know what I think of adding ->syncfs.  Don't Do
It.  The name is much too easily confused with ->sync_fs.

If you call it ->sync_fs_return_error() it would be MUCH better.

And having said that, the solution becomes obvious.  Add a new flag,
either as another bit in 'int wait', or as a new bool.
The new flag would be "return_error" - or whatever is appropriate.

NeilBrown

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (854 bytes)