linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/36] remove in-kernel syscall invocations (part 1)

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:   Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:20:43 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/36] remove in-kernel syscall invocations (part 1)

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:54:23AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:54:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Yes. And honestly, I'd rather have these kinds of "just change the
> > calling convention" almost automated patches separately - and then the
> > cleanups later.
> > 
> > Mixing the calling convention change and the cleanup together is just
> > confusing and potentially causes subtle issues.
> 
> A lot of the issues here is that the initramfs / do_mount code
> is written as if it was user space code, but in kernel space.  E.g.
> using file desriptors etc.

... and I still wonder if it would make more sense to kick that crap
out into userland.