linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: shave work on failed file open

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: <20230927-kosmetik-babypuppen-75bee530b9f0@brauner>
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 16:09:53 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To:     Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: shave work on failed file open

> I don't have a strong opinion, I think my variant is cleaner and more
> generic, but this boils down to taste and this is definitely not the
> hill I'm willing to die on.

I kinda like the release_empty_file() approach but we should keep the
WARN_ON_ONCE() so we can see whether anyone is taking an extra reference
on this thing. It's super unlikely but I guess zebras exist and if some
(buggy) code were to call get_file() during ->open() and keep that
reference for some reason we'd want to know why. But I don't think
anything does that.

No need to resend I can massage this well enough in-tree.