linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:09:25 +0900
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	"Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	mingo@...hat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	luto@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, zab <zab@...hat.com>,
	emunson@...mai.com,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, josh@...htriplett.org,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
	Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>,
	rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, arnd@...db.de,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	iulia manda21 <iulia.manda21@...il.com>,
	dave hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	mguzik <mguzik@...hat.com>, adobriyan@...il.com,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, gorcunov@...il.com,
	fw@...eb.enyo.de, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask.

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 05:38:24PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/13/16 19:13, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > 
> > One other reason to suggest using a /proc file is that you're not at
> > the mercy of the glibc folks to wire up a new system call.  (Glibc has
> > been refusing to wire up getrandom(2), for example.   Grrrr.....)
> > 
> 
> This brings right back up the libinux idea.  There are continued
> concerns about type compatibility, but saying "oh, use syscall(3)
> instead" has worse properties than a Linux-kernel-team maintained
> libinux.  Last I heard the glibc team had (reluctantly?) agreed to do
> something to deal with linux-specific system calls, but last I heard
> nothing had happened.  The last discussion I see on the glibc mailing
> list dates back to November, and that thread seems to have died from
> bikeshedding, again.
> 
> There aren't a *lot* of such system calls, but even in that thread the
> "oh, only two applications need this, let them use syscall(3)" seems to
> remain.

And only 2 applications will continue to use it because no one wants to
write syscall() wrappers for their individual applications, so it's a
vicious cycle :(

I really like the 'libinux' idea, did anyone every hack up a first-pass
at this?  And I'm guessing we have more syscalls now that would need to
be added (like getrandom(), but that shouldn't be too difficult.

thanks,

greg k-h