[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1734.1701983418@jrotkm2>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 06:10:18 +0900
From: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05g@...il.com>
To: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: amir73il@...il.com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org,
miklos@...redi.hu, Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>,
syzbot+a67fc5321ffb4b311c98@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Tyler Hicks <code@...icks.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Pass AT_GETATTR_NOSEC flag to getattr interface function
Stefan Berger:
> When vfs_getattr_nosec() calls a filesystem's getattr interface function
> then the 'nosec' should propagate into this function so that
> vfs_getattr_nosec() can again be called from the filesystem's gettattr
> rather than vfs_getattr(). The latter would add unnecessary security
> checks that the initial vfs_getattr_nosec() call wanted to avoid.
> Therefore, introduce the getattr flag GETATTR_NOSEC and allow to pass
> with the new getattr_flags parameter to the getattr interface function.
> In overlayfs and ecryptfs use this flag to determine which one of the
> two functions to call.
You are introducing two perfectly identical functions.
ecryptfs_do_getattr() and ovl_do_getattr().
Why don't you provide one in a common place, such like
include/linux/fs_stack.h?
J. R. Okajima
Powered by blists - more mailing lists