linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 30/33] vfs: syscall: Add fspick() to select a superblock for reconfiguration [ver #11]

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, 24 Aug 2018 07:54:57 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/33] vfs: syscall: Add fspick() to select a superblock for reconfiguration [ver #11]



> On Aug 24, 2018, at 7:51 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:29 PM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/fs.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fs.h
>> @@ -351,6 +351,11 @@ typedef int __bitwise __kernel_rwf_t;
>> 
>> #define FSMOUNT_CLOEXEC                0x00000001
>> 
>> +#define FSPICK_CLOEXEC         0x00000001
>> +#define FSPICK_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW        0x00000002
>> +#define FSPICK_NO_AUTOMOUNT    0x00000004
>> +#define FSPICK_EMPTY_PATH      0x00000008
> 
> This caught my eye:  why aren't we using the AT_ constants?  Adding an
> AT_CLOEXEC sounds less horrible than duplicating all the lookup
> related flags for FSPICK...

For a totally new API, is there any need to support !CLOEXEC?  A caller can safely remove the CLOEXEC bit without races.