Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O_TMPFILE|..., 0) with mode 0

2014-11-05 Thread Eric Rannaud
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 11:04:27AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> Oh, so you don't actually need any file contents at all? >> >> If that is actually a real usage, then maybe we should just say that >> "O_TMPFILE|O_RDONLY" is fine, and re

Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O_TMPFILE|..., 0) with mode 0

2014-11-03 Thread Eric Rannaud
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> That doesn't help because we explicitly reject O_RDONLY when combined >> with O_TMPFILE. > > I think I'm missing something. How is an O_RDONLY temporary file > useful? Wouldn't you want an O_RDWR tempfile with mode 0400 or > something lik

Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O_TMPFILE|..., 0) with mode 0

2014-10-30 Thread Eric Rannaud
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Eric Rannaud wrote: >> Yes, there definitely is a glibc bug: a fix is being worked on and it >> looks like it will go in. The change replaces the test for O_CREAT by >> a test

Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O_TMPFILE|..., 0) with mode 0

2014-10-30 Thread Eric Rannaud
in a code path that didn't have it at compile time (where flags was a build constant). Other wrappers add O_LARGEFILE. One wrapper for openat checks that dirfd is a directory (no idea why, as the kernel does the same check -- without a race; maybe to try to guarantee ENOTDIR on some old kernel version?

[RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O_TMPFILE|..., 0) with mode 0

2014-10-30 Thread Eric Rannaud
e the kernel looks for the 4th argument of a syscall in R10. Indeed, the syscall calling convention differs from the regular calling convention in this respect on x86_64. So the kernel sees mode = 0 when trying to use glibc openat() with O_TMPFILE, and fails with EACCES. Signed-off-by: Eric Rannaud ---

i915 (possibly): Suspend regression Macbook Pro 15 (late 2013)

2014-08-22 Thread Eric Rannaud
Hi, Between 3.13.5 and 3.15.4, suspend became partially broken on Macbook Pro 15 (late 2013): a few minutes after wakeup from the *second* suspend following a fresh boot, the screen will randomly turn itself off at shorter and shorter time intervals, and turn itself back on after a few seconds and

i915: Regression: +4W in idle power use on Macbook Pro 15 (late 2013)

2014-08-22 Thread Eric Rannaud
Hi, Between 3.15.4 and 3.15.8, there was an increase in idle power consumption on Apple Macbook Pro 15 (late 2013) on a freshly booted system (no wifi driver loaded; brightness set to 4/100; X running; no desktop environment, except Awesome), from 6.5W to about 10.5W, as reported by powertop. In

Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1

2007-03-27 Thread Eric Rannaud
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 07:17:49PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:25:57 +0200, > "Kay Sievers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Checking the uevent return value, will not prevent any malfunction, > > usually this kind of "error handling" just prevents bringing up a > > whole sub

Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1

2007-03-26 Thread Eric Rannaud
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:22:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If so, do you think I should labour on with > > > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch plus your fix, or should > > > I > > > drop the lot?

[PATCH 2/2] uevent: use add_uevent_var() instead of open coding it

2007-03-03 Thread Eric Rannaud
Subject: uevent: use add_uevent_var() instead of open coding it From: Eric Rannaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Make use of add_uevent_var() instead of (often incorrectly) open coding it. Signed-off-by: Eric Rannaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- drivers/amba/bus.c

[PATCH 1/2] uevent: improve error checking and handling

2007-03-03 Thread Eric Rannaud
Subject: uevent: improve error checking and handling From: Eric Rannaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> add_uevent_var() is used w/o checking for its return value, even though it is possible for those calls to return -ENOMEM. Signed-off-by: Eric Rannaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---

Re: Call to atention about using hash functions as content indexers (SCM saga)

2005-04-14 Thread Eric Rannaud
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 01:30 -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote: > In particular, your defense here is specious. I agree that second > preimage is an unmanagably large problem for SHA1 for the forseeable > future (say, 8 years out), but collision results almost always result in > partially-controlled attac

Re: Exploit in 2.6 kernels

2005-04-13 Thread Eric Rannaud
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 09:02 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > modprobe nvidia || m-a -t prepare nvidia && m-a -t build nvidia && m-a -t > install nvidia && modprobe nvidia Something along the lines of: modprobe nvidia || sh NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-6629-pkg1.run -s -f --no-network && modprobe nvidia

Re: Call to atention about using hash functions as content indexers (SCM saga)

2005-04-12 Thread Eric Rannaud
Simply put, the best known attack of SHA-1 takes 2^69 hash operations. ( http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html ) The attack is still only an unpublished paper and has not yet been implemented. An attack is: you try as hard as you can to find a collision between two arbitra