linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/59] struct filename work

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: <CAHk-=wi4j0+zDZPTr4-fyEE4qzHwNdVOwCSuPoJ4w0fpDZcDRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 16:32:03 +1200
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, 
	mjguzik@...il.com, paul@...l-moore.com, axboe@...nel.dk, 
	audit@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/59] struct filename work

So I like the whole series, but..

On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 at 15:56, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
>   struct filename ->refcnt doesn't need to be atomic

Does ->refcnt need to exist _at_all_ if audit isn't enabled?

Are there any other users of it? Maybe I missed some?

Because I'm wondering if we could just encapsulate the thing entirely
in some #ifdef CONFIG_AUDIT check.

Now, I think absolutely everybody does enable audit, so it's not
because I'd try to save one word of memory and a few tests, it's more
of a "could we make it very explicit that all that code is purely
about the audit case"?

                    Linus