linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2] fhandle: expose u64 mount id to name_to_handle

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: Mon, 27 May 2024 09:18:40 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
	Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] fhandle: expose u64 mount id to
 name_to_handle_at(2)

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 02:29:02PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> I see not inherent problem with exposing the 64 bit mount id through
> name_to_handle_at() as we already to expose the old one anyway.

That's one way to frame it.  The other is that exposing the different
mount ID also doesn't substantially fix the problem, so it's not
worth the churn.