linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD

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]

Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2013 04:42:27 +0100
From:	Martin Sustrik <sustrik@...bpm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@...bao.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD_MASK flag

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the detailed code review! I'll have a look at all the 
problems you've pointed out, however, one quick question:

>> -	ret = seq_printf(m, "eventfd-count: %16llx\n",
>> -			 (unsigned long long)ctx->count);
>> +	if (ctx->flags&  EFD_MASK) {
>> +		ret = seq_printf(m, "eventfd-mask: %x\n",
>> +				 (unsigned)ctx->mask.events);
>> +	} else {
>> +		ret = seq_printf(m, "eventfd-count: %16llx\n",
>> +				 (unsigned long long)ctx->count);
>> +	}
>>   	spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->wqh.lock);
>
> This is a non-back-compatible userspace interface change.  A procfs
> file which previously displayed
>
> 	eventfd-count: nnnn
>
> can now also display
>
> 	eventfd-mask: nnnn
>
> So existing userspace could misbehave.
>
> Please fully describe the proposed interface change in the changelog.
> That description should include the full pathname of the procfs file
> and example before-and-after output and a discussion of whether and why
> the risk to existing userspace is acceptable.

I am not sure what the policy is here. Is not printing out the state of 
the object acceptable way to maintain backward compatibility? If not so, 
does new type of object require new procfs file, which, AFAIU, is the 
only way to retain full backward compatibility?

Martin
--
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/