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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 14:30:31 +0000 From: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>, Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@...gle.com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] binder: fix redefinition of seq_file attributes On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 08:00:50AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 09:21:52PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 06:13:40PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 06:20:41PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote: > > > > + binder_for_each_debugfs_entry(db_entry) { > > > > + dentry = binderfs_create_file(binder_logs_root_dir, > > > > + db_entry->name, > > > > + db_entry->fops, > > > > + db_entry->data); > > > > + if (IS_ERR(dentry)) { > > > > + ret = PTR_ERR(dentry); > > > > + goto out; > > > > + } > > > > > > I know this is a copy of what is there already, but there is never a > > > need to check the result of a debugfs_create_* call. Just call it and > > > move on, never "abort" based on the result of a debugfs call, that's not > > > a good idea. > > > > This is true, none of these debugfs files seem critical for mounting a > > binderfs instance. I'm thinking init_binder_logs() should just return > > void. I'm only a bit hesitant to completely ignore the return code as > > users specifically ask for these files to be created via mount option > > "stats". So probably a pr_warn is what is actually needed here. > > That would just be too noisy, just let it go, no one cares :) ok, convinced. I'll get rid of these checks. > > > > So can you change this here, or want to send a follow-on patch that > > > removes these checks? > > > > Sure, I'll send a follow-on patch. I'm currently AFK so setting ETA for > > next week until I can actually test this change. > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > proc_log_dir = binderfs_create_dir(binder_logs_root_dir, "proc"); > > > > > > Also there's never a need to save a directory, you can always look it up > > > when you want to remove it. > > > > It seems this is a convenient way to share this path with binder which > > otherwise doesn't know where binderfs was mounted. From having a quick > > look it doesn't seem that we need to share all the details in struct > > binderfs_info though. Maybe there is a better way to handle all this. > > Why would you need to share this internally with anything, again, it can > always be looked up if you need it. I just looked into this and you are right. Binder can just take sb->s_root and look up the entries as needed. This means we can also unexport all the binderfs_info bits from the internal header. Great! Thanks, -- Carlos Llamas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists