linux-kernel - fanotify: disable fanotify syscalls

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, 11 Oct 2010 18:13:31 -0400
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: fanotify: disable fanotify syscalls

This patch disables the fanotify syscalls by just not building them and
letting the cond_syscall() statements in kernel/sys_ni.c redirect them
to sys_ni_syscall().

It was pointed out by Tvrtko Ursulin that the fanotify interface did not
include an explicit prioritization between groups.  This is necessary
for fanotify to be usable for hierarchical storage management software,
as they must get first access to the file, before inotify-like notifiers
see the file.

This feature can be added in an ABI compatible way in the next release
(by using a number of bits in the flags field to carry the info) but it
was suggested by Alan that maybe we should just hold off and do it in
the next cycle, likely with an (new) explicit argument to the syscall.
I don't like this approach best as I know people are already starting to
use the current interface, but Alan is all wise and noone on list backed
me up with just using what we have.  I feel this is needlessly ripping
the rug out from under people at the last minute, but if others think it
needs to be a new argument it might be the best way forward.

Three choices:
Go with what we got (and implement the new feature next cycle).  Add a
new field right now (and implement the new feature next cycle).  Wait
till next cycle to release the ABI (and implement the new feature next
cycle).  This is number 3.

Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>

---

 fs/notify/Kconfig    |    2 +-
 include/linux/Kbuild |    1 -
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/notify/Kconfig b/fs/notify/Kconfig
index 22c629e..b388443 100644
--- a/fs/notify/Kconfig
+++ b/fs/notify/Kconfig
@@ -3,4 +3,4 @@ config FSNOTIFY

 source "fs/notify/dnotify/Kconfig"
 source "fs/notify/inotify/Kconfig"
-source "fs/notify/fanotify/Kconfig"
+#source "fs/notify/fanotify/Kconfig"
diff --git a/include/linux/Kbuild b/include/linux/Kbuild
index 626b629..4e8ea8c 100644
--- a/include/linux/Kbuild
+++ b/include/linux/Kbuild
@@ -118,7 +118,6 @@ header-y += eventpoll.h
 header-y += ext2_fs.h
 header-y += fadvise.h
 header-y += falloc.h
-header-y += fanotify.h
 header-y += fb.h
 header-y += fcntl.h
 header-y += fd.h

--
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/