linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] NFSD changes for v6.18

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgDNJjvBc3+nAH9jTd4NHwiCizaw+0ZN9VSCpzT5jRTHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 14:54:36 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Chuck Lever <cel@...nel.org>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, 
	linux-um@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] NFSD changes for v6.18

On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 at 14:20, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
>
> That doesn't mean it's between the host and guest kernels, it's just
> between code built for "userspace" and code built for "kernel", both of
> which go into the UML linux "guest" binary. IOW, it's just for
> communication between hostfs_kern.c and hostfs_user.c, which nobody else
> needs to care about.

I was worried about people having version mismatches between those two parts.

But if that can't happen then that certainly simplifies things.

> However ... it looks like hostfs_kern.c is using ATTR_* in some places,
> and hostfs_user.c is using HOSTFS_ATTR_*, so it looks like right now
> these *do* need to match. Given that, we should just generate them via
> asm-offsets.h, like we do for other constants with the property of being
> needed on both sides but defined in places that cannot be included into
> user-side code, like this:

Sounds good.

> (that passes my usual tests, if you want you can apply it as is, or I
> can resend it as a real patch, or I can also put it into uml-next for
> later...)

None of this is the least critical - the bits I actually reacted to
aren't even used by hostfs so we also don't need to synchronize these
(potential) updates with each other.

So it does look like a good idea to remove the hardcoded "these bits
must match" thing, but clearly this hasn't been causing huge problems
in the many years they've been that way.

IOW - I'll wait for a later pull request from you.

            Linus