From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v2012.1] fs: symlink restrictions on sticky directories Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 12:16:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20120106111606.GA11892@elte.hu> References: <20120104201800.GA2587@www.outflux.net> <20120105091704.GB3249@elte.hu> <20120106073635.GC14188@elte.hu> <20120106012120.32c3f370.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20120106094339.GA9990@elte.hu> <20120106015808.1655d1c9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20120106100520.GA7962@elte.hu> <20120106023358.76374f2c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Kees Cook , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , Rik van Riel , Federica Teodori , Lucian Adrian Grijincu , Peter Zijlstra , Eric Paris , Randy Dunlap , Dan Rosenberg , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120106023358.76374f2c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:05:20 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > Maybe true for a general purpose computer, but someone who > > > is making a single-purpose device such as a digital TV or > > > a wifi router won't want it. > > > > That's the case for 99% of the features and semantics we > > have: by definition a single-purpose device uses only a > > small sub-set of an infinite purpose OS, right? > > > > Still we only modularize semantics out if they easily fit > > into some existing plug-in/module concept, if the feature is > > arguably oddball that a sizable portion of people want to > > disable, or if it makes notable sense for size reasons. To > > me it looked distinctly silly to complicate things for such > > a small piece of code. > > We're talking tens or hundreds of millions of machines for > which the patch is a straightforward speed and space > regression. Fixing this needs just a little Kconfig twiddling > and a #else clause. We may as well do it. No strong objections from me. > > I doubt Kees would mind modularizing it, but it would be nice to > > get VFS maintainer feedback in the: > > > > { 'you are crazy, over my dead body' ... 'cool, merge it' } > > > > continuous spectrum of possible answers. > > Well yes. We'll get there. > > Alas, I've become rather slack in my maintainer patchbombing > in the past year or two. It's just boring and depressing to > spray patches at maintainers and have 90% or more of them > simply ignored. [...] How about just sending it to Linus after the first ignored patch [perhaps marked in a special way, to make Linus aware of the out-of-band nature of the patches], instead of buffering them indefinitely and increasing your overhead all around? We'll no doubt regret some of those patches going upstream, but that's OK i think, this is an exception mechanism. > [...] I'm sitting on 45 such patches at present so I suppose I > should get off my tail and do a respray. (If I missed any then let me know.) Thanks, Ingo