[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHO5Pa2fysDRS3sFSy785XBKApxydN0ONW5kAfVJNkrB+wOaBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 23:54:55 +0200
From: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: add syscall to load module from fd
Kees,
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(finit_module, int, fd, const char __user *, uargs)
Given the repeated experience of the last few years--new system calls
that are in essence revisions of older system calls with a 'flags'
argument bolted on to allow more flexible behavior (e.g., accept4(),
dup3(), utimensat(), epoll_create1(), pipe2(), inotify_init(1), and so
on.)--maybe it is worth considering adding a 'flags' bit mask
argument[1] to the finti_module() system call now, to allow for
possible future extensions to the behavior of the interface. What do
you think?
Thanks,
Michael
[1] Yes, I know that init_module() doesn't have a flags argument, but
that interface was added when we'd seen fewer of the kinds of cases
listed above.
--
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