linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] vfs fixes

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]

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 07:58:07 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] vfs fixes

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 12:41:49PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 12:14, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > IOW, isn't the 'get()' always basically paired with the mounting? And
> > the 'put()' would probably be best done iin kill_block_super()?
> 
> .. or alternative handwavy approach:
> 
>  The fundamental _reason_ for the ->get/put seems to be to make the
> 'holder' lifetime be at least as long as the 'struct file' it is
> associated with. No?
> 
> So how about we just make the 'holder' always *be* a 'struct file *'? That
> 
>  (a) gets rid of the typeless 'void *' part
> 
>  (b) is already what it is for normal cases (ie O_EXCL file opens).
> 
> wouldn't it be lovely if we just made the rule be that 'holder' *is*
> the file pointer, and got rid of a lot of typeless WTF code?
> 
> Again, this comment (and the previous email) is more based on "this
> does not feel right to me" than anything else.
> 
> That code just makes my skin itch. I can't say it's _wrong_, but it
> just FeelsWrongToMe(tm).

So, initially I think the holder ops were intended to be generic by
Christoph but I agree that it's probably not needed. I just didn't
massage that code yet. Now on my todo for this cycle!