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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:36:05 -0500 From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5 On Feb 26, 2007, at 13:46:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Alan wrote: >>> I'm not sure. Turning, for example, the statat(dir_fd, name == >>> NULL) error case into fstat(dir_fd) sounds like a way for apps, >>> admittedly buggy ones, to be surprised. Maybe libc would be >>> exptected to catch the error before performing the shared system >>> call? >> At that point would it not be cheaper to have two system calls, >> the table cost isn't very large. > > It's not just the table, though, you need two entry points, but > even that isn't really all that big either, I guess. Well, I suppose there are multiple possibilities for consolidation: frevokeat(fd, "/foo/bar/baz") => normal frevokeat frevokeat(-1, "/foo/bar/baz") => revoke("/foo/bar/baz"); frevokeat(fd, NULL) => frevoke(fd); Neither of those would ordinarily be considered to do anything useful and for new syscalls I can't see the possibility of breaking existing programs. On the other hand, it's not like we have any problems with the syscall tables getting too large. Cheers, Kyle Moffett - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists