linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: use __fput

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:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 04:18:38 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
Cc:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: use __fput_sync in close(2)

On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 01:06:27AM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> With the assumption this is not going to work, I wrote my own patch
> which adds close_fd_sync() and filp_close_sync().  They are shipped as
> dedicated func entry points, but perhaps inlines which internally add a
> flag to to the underlying routine would be preferred?

Yes, I think static inlines would be better here.  

> Also adding __ in
> front would be in line with __fput_sync, but having __filp_close_sync
> call  __filp_close looks weird to me.

I'd handle this as ...

int file_close_sync(struct file *, fl_owner_t, bool sync);
static inline filp_close(struct file *file, fl_owner_t owner)
{
	return file_close_sync(file, owner, false);
}