linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS: change kern_path_locked() and user_path_locked

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: <lfzaikkzt46fatqzqjeanxx2m2cwll46mqdcbizph22cck6stw@rhdne3332qdx>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 01:51:23 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...nel.org>, 
	Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>, Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>, 
	Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, 
	Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, audit@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS: change kern_path_locked() and
 user_path_locked_at() to never return negative dentry

On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 05:34:23PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Feb 2025, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 03:53:52PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > Do you think there could be a problem with changing the error returned
> > > in this circumstance? i.e. if you try to destroy a subvolume with a
> > > non-existant name on a different filesystem could getting -ENOENT
> > > instead of -EXDEV be noticed?
> > 
> > -EXDEV is the standard error code for "we're crossing a filesystem
> > boundary and we can't or aren't supposed to be", so no, let's not change
> > that.
> > 
> 
> OK.  As bcachefs is the only user of user_path_locked_at() it shouldn't
> be too hard.

Hang on, why does that require keeping user_path_locked_at()? Just
compare i_sb...