linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ns: Wire up the setns system call for 2.6.40-rc1 or whatever

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110529084940.GA26714@linux-mips.org>
Date:	Sun, 29 May 2011 09:49:40 +0100
From:	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ns: Wire up the setns system call for 2.6.40-rc1 or
 whatever

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 10:55:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> >
> > 32bit and 64bit on x86 are tested and working.  The rest I have looked
> > at closely and I can't find any problems.
> 
> So I really don't think this was even worth it. I applied the patch,
> but I think that you should just have done the architecture you
> tested, and left it to arch maintainers to add it as they will.
> 
> That's how we tend to do this, and it works. It also avoids surprises
> when people then invariably end up having clashes due to system calls
> being added. Even in just the 15 hours since you sent the email, I had
> merged more code from ARM, and the patch no longer applied to my tree.
> It's trivial to fix up, so that's not the problem, but the problem is
> with different people adding system calls resulting in re-numbering.

Which just happened on MIPS; I had a conflict between sendmmsg and sysns.

People other than the maintainer adding new syscalls routinely goes wrong
for this or other reasons.

> In other words, it's simply better to strive to have *one* entity in
> charge of picking the system call number, rather than do it like this.
> Ergo: leave it to architecture maintainers to minimize the issue of
> system call renumbering.

Amen.

  Ralf
--
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/