[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjGxVVKvxVf=NDnMhB3=eQ_NMiEY3onG1wRAjJepig=aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 09:39:05 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [for-linus][PATCH 1/3] eventfs: Have the inodes all for files and
directories all be the same
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 at 09:37, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Yeah, limiting it to directories will at least somewhat help the
> address leaking.
Actually, why not juist add an inode number to your data structures,
at least for directories? And just do a static increment on it as they
get registered?
That avoids the whole issue with possibly leaking kernel address data.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists