linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] file: Wrap locking mechanism for f_pos

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: <20241204124829.4xpciqbz73u2e2nc@quack3>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:48:29 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@...il.com>,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] file: Wrap locking mechanism for f_pos_lock

On Wed 04-12-24 12:11:02, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > motivation of introducing __f_unlock_pos() in the first place? It has one
> 
> May I venture a guess:
> 
>   CALL    ../scripts/checksyscalls.sh
>   INSTALL libsubcmd_headers
>   INSTALL libsubcmd_headers
>   CC      fs/read_write.o
> In file included from ../fs/read_write.c:12:
> ../include/linux/file.h:78:27: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct file'
>    78 |                 mutex_unlock(&fd_file(f)->f_pos_lock);
>       |                               ~~~~~~~~~~^
> 
> If you don't include linux/fs.h before linux/file.h you'd get compilation
> errors and we don't want to include linux/fs.h in linux/file.h.

Ah, subtle ;)

> I wouldn't add another wrapper for lock though. Just put a comment on top of
> __f_unlock_pos().       

Yes, I guess comment is better in that case.

								Honza

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