linux-kernel - Re: API break, sysfs "capability" file

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: <d7a2b07c-26eb-4d55-8aa7-137168bd0b49@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:17:02 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
 Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
 linux-block@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: API break, sysfs "capability" file

On 4/9/24 8:15 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 10:19:09AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> All I am looking for is a very simple test that returns me a boolean:
>> is there kernel-level partition scanning enabled on this device or
>> not.
> 
> And we can add a trivial sysfs attribute for that.

And I think we should. I don't know what was being smoked adding a sysfs
interface that exposed internal flag values - and honestly what was
being smoked to rely on that, but I think it's fair to say that the
majority of the fuckup here is on the kernel side.
 
> At this point we're just better off with a clean new interface.
> And you can use the old hack for < 5.15 if you care strongly enough
> or just talk distros into backporting it to make their lives easier.

We should arguably just stable mark the patch adding the above simple
interface.

-- 
Jens Axboe