linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v2] lib/fs: fix issue when {name,open}_to_handle

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]

Date:   Sun, 2 May 2021 10:35:17 +0200
From:   Heiko Thiery <heiko.thiery@...il.com>
To:     Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v2] lib/fs: fix issue when
 {name,open}_to_handle_at() is not implemented

Hi Petr,

Am Fr., 30. Apr. 2021 um 21:29 Uhr schrieb Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@...il.com>:
>
> Hi,
>
> > > +++ b/lib/fs.c
> > > @@ -30,6 +30,27 @@
> > >  /* if not already mounted cgroup2 is mounted here for iproute2's use */
> > >  #define MNT_CGRP2_PATH  "/var/run/cgroup2"
>
> > > +
> > > +#ifndef defined HAVE_HANDLE_AT
> > This is also wrong, it must be:
> > #ifndef HAVE_HANDLE_AT
>
> > > +struct file_handle {
> > > +   unsigned handle_bytes;
> > > +   int handle_type;
> > > +   unsigned char f_handle[];
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +int name_to_handle_at(int dirfd, const char *pathname,
> > > +   struct file_handle *handle, int *mount_id, int flags)
> > > +{
> > > +   return syscall(name_to_handle_at, 5, dirfd, pathname, handle,
> > > +                  mount_id, flags);
> > Also I overlooked bogus 5 parameter, why is here? Correct is:
>
> >       return syscall(__NR_name_to_handle_at, dfd, pathname, handle,
> >                          mount_id, flags);
> Uh, one more typo on my side, sorry (dfd => dirfd):
>         return syscall(__NR_name_to_handle_at, dirfd, pathname, handle,
>                            mount_id, flags);
>

Thanks for the review and finding the sloppiness. I really should test
the changes before. Nevertheless, I will prepare a new version and
test it this time.

BR,
-- 
Heiko