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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 16:34:47 +0200
From:   Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
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

On 9/27/23, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>

Ok, I'm buggering off to other patches.

Thanks.

-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>