[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH 01/25] VFS: move attr_kill logic from notify_cha

To: trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH 01/25] VFS: move attr_kill logic from notify_change into helper function
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:37:00 +0200
Cc: miklos@xxxxxxxxxx, jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, codalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, jfs-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, zippel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, joel.becker@xxxxxxxxxx, wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, reiserfs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx, fuse-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jffs-dev@xxxxxxxx, user-mode-linux-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, v9fs-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-cifs-client@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ocfs2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bfennema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1186427063.6616.59.camel@localhost> (message from Trond Myklebust on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:04:23 -0400)
References: <200708061354.l76Ds6sq002260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1II6cM-0004yj-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070806141333.0f54ab17.jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> <E1II7JR-0005BN-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1186427063.6616.59.camel@localhost>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Your patch is changing the API in a very unsafe way, since there will
> > be no error or warning on an unconverted fs.  And that could lead to
> > security holes.
> > 
> > If we would rename the setattr method to setattr_new as well as
> > changing it's behavior, that would be fine.  But I guess we do not
> > want to do that.
> Which "unconverted fses"? If we're talking out of tree stuff, then too
> bad: it is _their_ responsibility to keep up with kernel changes.

It is usually a good idea to not change the semantics of an API in a
backward incompatible way without changing the syntax as well.

This is true regardless of whether we care about out-of-tree code or
not (and we should care to some degree).  And especially true if the
change in question is security sensitive.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>