From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [62.89.141.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBEEE25F972; Fri, 9 May 2025 04:46:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.89.141.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746765984; cv=none; b=ILQggYbrbySMU6SJh1L+TUnX3R0EEXKCa/VgwSU8nb0p0Iav0qsjubCuxFnPYLIw5bKXUCRBljOhnSQ4NR1kaEw4yfRQehuMqs7BSLet2wAUPaLHIlqrZWsyWnaxfE5HzNp+HLqcNoc/C4pg/Gbstf9GbLTl0kYb8eNZM7I8yPY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746765984; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lH8LZ6clVl9c1ZHcQbObRFxrPn6Sm8KbZ1BjHN97YBI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PjY5w3EnKFHkr6i0pKa6EHyiVpIVTomC/R1T88uqDzHGiO/8AK7V0EV7tqjydezu6H7sINcbXyqo6Mh5h2245iaxLCx2ZQn3opwOXgwx9WW8WSqr9gsXIncu7TUtAFZiub7HH/JqwlM67wYkIRkoodl0ECcoduDIonNcI/HzZzw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ftp.linux.org.uk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linux.org.uk header.i=@linux.org.uk header.b=j3wGZzIQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.89.141.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ftp.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linux.org.uk header.i=@linux.org.uk header.b="j3wGZzIQ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.org.uk; s=zeniv-20220401; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=kCiQ08WuF4knOAWguEhAZ/eUS7sjpUs7wFbu+26MI2E=; b=j3wGZzIQv5N9Sxgw2FTK4Wacgh LN3/ENWn7E2H8NwhWKy+QlN/DTF8Jl9es1/5GcjHnI1QE1mk9ddgIXOjXc2wCqqysa0f8FIP+Xze4 wvClzmwUE7QTSap7xMsMyaVnkars2JjvLcTc2TYXq+v/nmEFOa39ujomhhev6Eid48jSmw45dhxZD /U1sNYHwn+jVssKeUuYgKAjsVHtbXTbN5Epio66BQ40bfQqKwtPKrh5wp2i7k/N0es8YhcTVtyHK5 /0RocMIu46uRx++SFxldXs3Xie1Pj9RN6/uxDQNlVy9WbdrPubnaBoQpn/QF9ADo3l7eWuRtysh6H zshgEK9A==; Received: from viro by zeniv.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uDFcj-0000000A9b6-3y0f; Fri, 09 May 2025 04:46:13 +0000 Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 05:46:13 +0100 From: Al Viro To: alexjlzheng@gmail.com Cc: paul@paul-moore.com, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, greg@kroah.com, chrisw@osdl.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jinliang Zheng Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] securityfs: fix missing of d_delete() in securityfs_remove() Message-ID: <20250509044613.GT2023217@ZenIV> References: <20250508140438.648533-2-alexjlzheng@tencent.com> <20250509032326.GJ2023217@ZenIV> <20250509043712.GK2023217@ZenIV> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250509043712.GK2023217@ZenIV> Sender: Al Viro On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 05:37:12AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 04:23:26AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > I have fixes for some of that crap done on top of tree-in-dcache series; > > give me an hour or two and I'll separate those and rebase to mainline... > > Completely untested: > git://git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git #untested.securityfs > > on top of v6.15-rc5. And I'm serious about the "untested" part - it builds > with allmodconfig, but that's all I've checked. So treat that as an outline > of what could be done, but don't use as-is without serious testing. PS: I'm really, really serious - do not use without a serious review; this is a rebase of a branch last touched back in March and it was a part of long tail, with pretty much zero testing even back then. Patches are simple enough to have a chance to be somewhere in the vicinity of being correct, but that's all I can promise.