linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] exportfs: add flag to allow marking export operations as only supporting file handles

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241205-waghalsige-hetzjagd-b271c6c2efea@brauner>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 11:53:16 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, 
	Erin Shepherd <erin.shepherd@....eu>, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, 
	stable <stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] exportfs: add flag to allow marking export
 operations as only supporting file handles

On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 04:38:28PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 02:12:24PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Hey,
> > 
> > Some filesystems like kernfs and pidfs support file handles as a
> > convenience to enable the use of name_to_handle_at(2) and
> > open_by_handle_at(2) but don't want to and cannot be reliably exported.
> > Add a flag that allows them to mark their export operations accordingly
> > and make NFS check for its presence.
> > 
> > @Amir, I'll reorder the patches such that this series comes prior to the
> > pidfs file handle series. Doing it that way will mean that there's never
> > a state where pidfs supports file handles while also being exportable.
> > It's probably not a big deal but it's definitely cleaner. It also means
> > the last patch in this series to mark pidfs as non-exportable can be
> > dropped. Instead pidfs export operations will be marked as
> > non-exportable in the patch that they are added in.
> 
> Can you please invert the polarity?  Marking something as not supporting
> is always awkward.  Clearly marking it as supporting something (and
> writing down in detail what is required for that) is much better, even
> it might cause a little more churn initially.

Fine by me but let's do that as a cleanup on top, please. Especially
because we need to backport this to stable.