netdev - Re: [PATCH][RFC] don't bother with path_get()/path_put() in unix_open

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: <CAAVpQUBK5029mFoajUOYoL3aNTfJg0fqR7FSHViLvt-Ob4u0VA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 09:11:09 -0700
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] don't bother with path_get()/path_put() in unix_open_file()

On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 8:04 AM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 10:24:11AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 06:38:33AM +0000, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> > > Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2025 06:41:57 +0100
> > > > Once unix_sock ->path is set, we are guaranteed that its ->path will remain
> > > > unchanged (and pinned) until the socket is closed.  OTOH, dentry_open()
> > > > does not modify the path passed to it.
> > > >
> > > > IOW, there's no need to copy unix_sk(sk)->path in unix_open_file() - we
> > > > can just pass it to dentry_open() and be done with that.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> > >
> > > Sounds good.  I confirmed vfs_open() copies the passed const path ptr.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>
> >
> > I can just throw that into the SCM_PIDFD branch?
>
> Fine by me; the thing is, I don't have anything else in the area at the moment
> (and won't until -rc1 - CLASS(get_unused_fd) series will stray there, but
> it's not settled enough yet, so it's definitely the next cycle fodder).
>
> So if you (or netdev folks) already have anything going on in the af_unix.c,
> I've no problem with that thing going there.

AFAIK, there's no conflicting changes around unix_open_file() in
net-next, and this is more of vfs stuff, so whichever is fine to me.