linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mountinfo: implement show

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:	Mon, 2 May 2016 12:33:32 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc:	Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mountinfo: implement show_path for kernfs and cgroup

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:36:23AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > In the ideal world there is no mountinfo file, but /proc/self/mountinfo/<id>/
> > directory with individual files, so every subsystem and filesystem has 
> > absolute freedom to store there all relevant information. The result will 
> > be also lucky kernel that does not have to always generate entire huge 
> > mountinfo file for all mountpoins... etc. :-)
> 
> Yeah mountinfo does seem like a big stick to swing around every time I want
> one little piece of information.  Also mght be good to have per-fstype
> directories so we can just look under /proc/self/mountsdir/cgroupfs/ for
> only cgroupfs <id>s.
> 
> There we might also find open fds for source and mountdir, kinda fitting
> in with previous discussions of separating bdev_open() and mountat().
> 
> BTW, assuming this would in fact report source and mountpoint location
> with fds, these would really (through realpath) be reported relative to
> the reader's namespace, as I'm doing and advocating here.

So, what's the consensus here?  Is everyone okay with the posted
patches?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun