linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 07/10] sched: add a macro to ref all CLONE

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: <20150417220004.GB26233@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:00:04 -0400
From:	Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
	sgrubb@...hat.com, eparis@...isplace.org, pmoore@...hat.com,
	arozansk@...hat.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, serge@...lyn.com,
	zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 07/10] sched: add a macro to ref all CLONE_NEW* flags

On 15/04/17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:42:50AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 15/04/17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 03:35:54AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > Added the macro CLONE_NEW_MASK_ALL to refer to all CLONE_NEW* flags.
> > > 
> > > A wee bit about why might be nice..
> > 
> > It makes the following patch much cleaner to read:
> > 	[PATCH V6 08/10] fork: audit on creation of new namespace(s)
> > 	https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/17/50
> > 
> > I was hoping it might also make a lot of other code cleaner, but most of
> > the other places where multiple CLONE_NEW* flags are used, not all six
> > are used together, but only 5 are used.  Ok, so it is helpful in 1 of 3:
> > 
> > It would actually be useful in check_unshare_flags():
> > 	https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v3.17/kernel/fork.c#L1791
> > 
> > but not in copy_namespaces() or unshare_nsproxy_namespaces():
> > 	https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v3.17/kernel/nsproxy.c#L130
> > 	https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v3.17/kernel/nsproxy.c#L183
> 
> Right, so no objections from me on this, its just that I only saw this
> one patch in isolation without context and the changelog failed on
> rationale.

I realize you only saw a small window of this patchset, but this feels
like bike shedding about the main objective of the set...

I'll add a bit more justification and context if/when I respin for the
rest of the set.

> Does it perchance make sense to fold this patch into the next patch that
> actually makes use of it?

It would if it were the only potential user.  I don't want to bury a
surprise in something bigger.  Is there a preferred way to use such a
macro to make the other three examples cleaner, or is that just useless
churn and obfuscation?  Would there be a concise way to express all
CLONE_NEW* flags *except* user?

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@...hat.com>
Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545
--
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/