linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

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: <CAHc6FU7SZJfLAD6dRdD9V0mW1w+xZrW77REaaP+EzUBtd_uciw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 16:45:32 +0200
From:   Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 3:46 AM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:12:31AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got conflicts in:
> >
> >   Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
> >   include/linux/uio.h
> >   lib/iov_iter.c
> >
> > between various commits from the vfs tree and the same, older version,
> > of the commits from the gfs2 tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree versions) and can carry the fix as
> > necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> > non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> > when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
> > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> > particularly complex conflicts.
>
> IMO iov_iter_fault_in_writeable() is a bloody bad idea to start with...

It seems that we need a mechanism for faulting in a page in for
writing. It's ugly that iov_iter_fault_in_writeable() writes to the
page for faulting it in, and if the operation that the page was
faulted in for then fails, those writes will be visible. Would an
implementation that reads and then writes back the same value be less
bloody bad?

Thanks,
Andreas