linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] erofs: fix lockdep false positives on initializing erofs_pseudo

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: <20240307084608.GD538574@ZenIV>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 08:46:08 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, xiang@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org,
	huyue2@...lpad.com, jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yangerkun@...wei.com,
	houtao1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com, chengzhihao1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] erofs: fix lockdep false positives on initializing
 erofs_pseudo_mnt

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 07:21:12AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 03:06:49PM +0800, Baokun Li wrote:
> > > > +int erofs_anon_register_fs(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	return register_filesystem(&erofs_anon_fs_type);
> > > > +}
> > > What for?  The only thing it gives you is an ability to look it up by
> > > name.  Which is completely pointless, IMO,
> > The helper function here is to avoid extern erofs_anon_fs_type(), because
> > we define it in fscache.c, but also use it in super.c. Moreover, we don't
> > need
> > to register it when CONFIG_EROFS_FS_ONDEMAND is not enabled, so we
> 
> You don't need to register it at all.
> 
> The one and only effect of register_filesystem() is making file_system_type
> instance visible to get_fs_type() (and making it show up in /proc/filesystems).
> 
> That's it.  If you want to have it looked up by name (e.g. for userland
> mounts), you need to register.  If not, you do not need to do that.
> 
> Note that kern_mount() take a pointer to struct file_system_type,
> not its (string) name.  So all you get from registration is an extra line
> in /proc/filesystems.  What's the point?

PS: at one point I considered renaming it to something that would sound
less vague, but the best variant I'd been able to come up with was
"publish_filesystem()", which is not much better and has an extra problem -
how do you describe the reverse of that?  "withdraw_filesystem()"?
Decided that it wasn't worth the amount of noise and headache...