linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] jffs2: Hook up splice

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: <YGNuZMUkzH0tkce6@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:31:00 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "William A . Kennington III" <wak@...gle.com>,
        Lei YU <mine260309@...il.com>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jffs2: Hook up splice_write callback

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 06:17:15PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:15:37AM +1030, Joel Stanley wrote:
> > overlayfs using jffs2 as the upper filesystem would fail in some cases
> > since moving to v5.10. The test case used was to run 'touch' on a file
> > that exists in the lower fs, causing the modification time to be
> > updated. It returns EINVAL when the bug is triggered.
> > 
> > A bisection showed this was introduced in v5.9-rc1, with commit
> > 36e2c7421f02 ("fs: don't allow splice read/write without explicit ops").
> > Reverting that commit restores the expected behaviour.
> > 
> > Some digging showed that this was due to jffs2 lacking an implementation
> > of splice_write. (For unknown reasons the warn_unsupported that should
> > trigger was not displaying any output).
> > 
> > Adding this patch resolved the issue and the test now passes.
> 
> Looks good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>

The same goes for quite a few other filesystems, actually - at least
adfs, affs, bfs, hfs, hfsplus, hostfs, hpfs, minix, omfs, sysv, ufs 
and vboxsf are in the same boat, and I suspect that ecryptfs and ntfs
might be too.

Christoph, do you see any problems with doing the same thing for that
bunch as well?