linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] quota: Add mountpath based quota support

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: <20210212102900.GN19583@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:29:00 +0100
From:   Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] quota: Add mountpath based quota support

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:05:05AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 12-02-21 09:38:35, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 03:38:13PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > +	if (!mountpoint)
> > > > +		return -ENODEV;
> > > > +
> > > > +	ret = user_path_at(AT_FDCWD, mountpoint,
> > > > +			     LOOKUP_FOLLOW | LOOKUP_AUTOMOUNT, &mountpath);
> > > 
> > > user_path_at handles an empty path, although you'll get EFAULT instead.
> > > Do we care about the -ENODEV here?
> > 
> > The quotactl manpage documents EFAULT as error code for invalid addr or
> > special argument, so we really should return -EFAULT here.
> > 
> > Existing quotactl gets this wrong as well:
> > 
> > 	if (!special) {
> > 		if (cmds == Q_SYNC)
> > 			return quota_sync_all(type);
> > 		return -ENODEV;
> > 	}
> > 
> > Should we fix this or is there userspace code that is confused by a changed
> > return value?
> 
> I'd leave the original quotactl(2) as is. There's no strong reason to risk
> breaking some userspace. For the new syscall, I agree we can just
> standardize the return value, there ENODEV makes even less sense since
> there's no device in that call.

Ok, will do. Who can pick this series up? Anyone else I need to Cc next
round?

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |