linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] debugfs: ignore auto and noauto options if given

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: <20240603-turnen-wagen-685f86730633@brauner>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 16:33:20 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>, 
	linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debugfs: ignore auto and noauto options if given

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 09:17:10AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 6/3/24 8:31 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 09:24:50AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Does that fix it for you?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, it does, thank you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reported-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
> >>>> Tested-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, applied. Should be fixed by end of the week.
> >>
> >> It is in -next but not in rc2. rc3 then?
> > 
> > Yes, it wasn't ready when I sent the fixes for -rc2 as I just put it in
> > that day.
> > 
> 
> See my other reply, are you sure we should make this change? From a
> "keep the old behavior" POV maybe so, but this looks to me like a
> bug in busybox, passing fstab hint "options" like "auto" as actual mount
> options being the root cause of the problem. debugfs isn't uniquely
> affected by this behavior.
> 
> I'm not dead set against the change, just wanted to point this out.

Hm, it seems I forgot your other mail, sorry.
So the issue is that we're breaking existing userspace and it doesn't
seem like a situation where we can just ignore broken userspace. If
busybox has been doing that for a long time we might just have to
accommodate their brokenness. Thoughts?