linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 09/15] (RFC) IPC: new kernel API to change an ID

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]

Message-ID: <47A19AC2.7040709@sw.ru>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:54:10 +0300
From:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
To:	Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@...l.net>
CC:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 09/15] (RFC) IPC: new kernel API to change
 an ID

Why user space can need this API? for checkpointing only?
Then I would not consider it for inclusion until it is clear how to implement checkpointing.

As for me personally - I'm against exporting such APIs, since they are not needed in real-life user space applications and maintaining it forever for compatibility doesn't worth it.
Also such APIs allow creation of non-GPL checkpointing in user-space, which can be of concern as well.

Kirill


Pierre Peiffer wrote:
> Hi again,
> 
> 	Thinking more about this, I think I must clarify why I choose this way.
> In fact, the idea of these patches is to provide the missing user APIs (or
> extend the existing ones) that allow to set or update _all_ properties of all
> IPCs, as needed in the case of the checkpoint/restart of an application (the
> current user API does not allow to specify an ID for a created IPC, for
> example). And this, without changing the existing API of course.
> 
> 	And msgget(), semget() and shmget() does not have any parameter we can use to
> specify an ID.
> 	That's why I've decided to not change these routines and add a new control
> command, IP_SETID, with which we can can change the ID of an IPC. (that looks to
> me more straightforward and logical)
> 
> 	Now, this patch is, in fact, only a preparation for the patch 10/15 which
> really complete the user API by adding this IPC_SETID command.
> 
> (... continuing below ...)
> 
> Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 05:02:38PM +0100, pierre.peiffer@...l.net wrote:
>>> This patch provides three new API to change the ID of an existing
>>> System V IPCs.
>>>
>>> These APIs are:
>>> 	long msg_chid(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int id, int newid);
>>> 	long sem_chid(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int id, int newid);
>>> 	long shm_chid(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int id, int newid);
>>>
>>> They return 0 or an error code in case of failure.
>>>
>>> They may be useful for setting a specific ID for an IPC when preparing
>>> a restart operation.
>>>
>>> To be successful, the following rules must be respected:
>>> - the IPC exists (of course...)
>>> - the new ID must satisfy the ID computation rule.
>>> - the entry in the idr corresponding to the new ID must be free.
>>>  ipc/util.c          |   48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  ipc/util.h          |    1 +
>>>  8 files changed, 197 insertions(+)
>> For the record, OpenVZ uses "create with predefined ID" method which
>> leads to less code. For example, change at the end is all we want from
>> ipc/util.c .
> 
> And in fact, you do that from kernel space, you don't have the constraint to fit
> the existing user API.
> Again, this patch, even if it presents a new kernel API, is in fact a
> preparation for the next patch which introduces a new user API.
> 
> Do you think that this could fit your need ?
> 
--
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/