linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2

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]

Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:05:57 +0300 (EEST)
From:	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...Helsinki.FI>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...l.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	tytso@....edu, tigran@...itas.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2

On 7/27/06, Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
> > +asmlinkage int sys_revoke(const char __user *filename)

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Could we just plainly avoid adding any new syscalls which take a
> filename without extending the interface like the *at functions?
> I.e., add a file descriptor parameter, handle AT_FDCWD, etc.  The
> additional effort is really minimal.  Even if, as in this case, the
> function is propably not used in situations where the filename use is
> racy there are still those people to consider who want to implement a
> virtual per-thread current working directory.

Sure. Though I wonder if sys_frevoke is enough for us and we can drop 
sys_revoke completely.

				Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/