linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] VFS: generate FS_CREATE before FS_OPEN when ->atomic

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: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:41:51 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
	James Clark <james.clark@....com>, ltp@...ts.linux.it,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] VFS: generate FS_CREATE before FS_OPEN when
 ->atomic_open used.

On Tue 18-06-24 16:19:37, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > AFAICT this will have a side-effect that now fsnotify_open() will be
> > generated even for O_PATH open. It is true that fsnotify_close() is getting
> 
> Thanks! That change seemed sensible because a close() event is
> generated.
> 
> But I don't agree that generating events for O_PATH fds doesn't make
> sense on principle. But I don't care if you drop events for O_PATH now.

Well, I can be convinced otherwise but I was not able to find a compeling
usecase for it. fanotify(8) users primarily care about file data
modification / access events and secondarily also about directory content
changes (because they change how data can be accessed). And creation of
O_PATH fds does not seem to fall into either of these categories...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR