linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] fuse: add an implementation of open+getattr

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: <3223f464-9f76-4c37-b62b-f61f6b1fc1f6@bsbernd.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:41:49 +0100
From: Bernd Schubert <bernd@...ernd.com>
To: Horst Birthelmer <horst@...thelmer.de>,
 Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>
Cc: Horst Birthelmer <horst@...thelmer.com>,
 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Horst Birthelmer <hbirthelmer@....com>,
 Luis Henriques <luis@...lia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] fuse: add an implementation of open+getattr



On 1/15/26 14:38, Horst Birthelmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 06:29:26PM -0800, Joanne Koong wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 10:27 AM Horst Birthelmer <horst@...thelmer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +
>>> +       err = fuse_compound_send(compound);
>>> +       if (err)
>>> +               goto out;
>>> +
>>> +       err = fuse_compound_get_error(compound, 0);
>>> +       if (err)
>>> +               goto out;
>>> +
>>> +       err = fuse_compound_get_error(compound, 1);
>>> +       if (err)
>>> +               goto out;
>>
>> Hmm, if the open succeeds but the getattr fails, why not process it
>> kernel-side as a success for the open? Especially since on the server
>> side, libfuse will disassemble the compound request into separate
>> ones, so the server has no idea the open is even part of a compound.
>>
>> I haven't looked at the rest of the patch yet but this caught my
>> attention when i was looking at how fuse_compound_get_error() gets
>> used.
>>
> After looking at this again ...
> Do you think it would make sense to add an example of lookup+create, or would that just convolute things?


I think that will be needed with the LOOKUP_HANDLE from Luis, if we go
the way Miklos proposes. To keep things simple, maybe not right now?


Thanks,
Bernd