linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] handle large user and group ID for isofs and udf

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]

Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 14:18:56 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     bingjingc <bingjingc@...ology.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        jack@...e.com, axboe@...nel.dk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cccheng@...ology.com,
        robbieko@...ology.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] handle large user and group ID for isofs and udf

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:55:01AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 28-01-21 15:12:27, bingjingc wrote:
> > From: BingJing Chang <bingjingc@...ology.com>
> > 
> > The uid/gid (unsigned int) of a domain user may be larger than INT_MAX.
> > The parse_options of isofs and udf will return 0, and mount will fail
> > with -EINVAL. These patches try to handle large user and group ID.
> > 
> > BingJing Chang (3):
> >   parser: add unsigned int parser
> >   isofs: handle large user and group ID
> >   udf: handle large user and group ID
> 
> Thanks for your patches! Just two notes:
> 
> 1) I don't think Matthew Wilcox gave you his Reviewed-by tag (at least I
> didn't see such email). Generally the rule is that the developer has to
> explicitely write in his email that you can attach his Reviewed-by tag for
> it to be valid.

Right, I didn't.

Looking at fuse, they deleted their copy of match_uint
in favour of switching to the fs_parameter_spec (commit
c30da2e981a703c6b1d49911511f7ade8dac20be) and I wonder if isofs & udf
shouldn't receive the same attention.