linux-kernel - Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH v5 0/3] FUSE: Implement atomic lookup + open/create

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: <fb2937b5-1bbf-511f-082f-b3b7fbc65128@fastmail.fm>
Date:   Thu, 19 May 2022 22:47:11 +0200
From:   Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dharmendra Singh <dharamhans87@...il.com>,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH v5 0/3] FUSE: Implement atomic lookup +
 open/create



On 5/19/22 20:16, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 at 19:42, Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com> wrote:
> 
>> Can you help me a bit to understand what we should change? I had also
>> already thought to merge CREATE_EXT and OPEN_ATOMIC - so agreed.
>> Shall we make the other cases more visible?
> 
> Make it clear in the code flow if we are using the new request or the
> old; e.g. rename current fuse_atomic_open() to fuse_open_nonatomic()
> and do
> 
> static int fuse_open_atomic(...)
> {
>      ...
>      args.opcode = FUSE_OPEN_ATOMIC;
>      ...
>      err = fuse_simple_request(...);
>      if (err == -ENOSYS)
>          goto fallback;
>      ...
> fallback:
>      return fuse_open_nonatomic();
> }
> 
> static int fuse_atomic_open(...)
> {
>      if (fc->no_open_atomic)
>          return fuse_open_nonatomic();
>      else
>          return fuse_open_atomic();
> }
> 
> Also we can tweak fuse_dentry_revalidate() so it always invalidates
> negative dentries if the new atomic open is available, and possibly
> for positive dentries as well, if the rfc patch makes it.

Thank you, we will try to do it like that during the next day.


Thanks,
Bernd