linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 3/3] kexec: extend kexec_file

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: <20160718023024.GB6310@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:30:24 +0800
From:	Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>, bhe@...hat.com,
	arnd@...db.de, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] kexec: extend kexec_file_load system call

On 07/15/16 at 02:19pm, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 09:09:55AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:42:01AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > 
> > [..]
> > > -SYSCALL_DEFINE5(kexec_file_load, int, kernel_fd, int, initrd_fd,
> > > +SYSCALL_DEFINE6(kexec_file_load, int, kernel_fd, int, initrd_fd,
> > >  		unsigned long, cmdline_len, const char __user *, cmdline_ptr,
> > > -		unsigned long, flags)
> > > +		unsigned long, flags, const struct kexec_fdset __user *, ufdset)
> > 
> > Can one add more parameters to existing syscall. Can it break existing
> > programs with new kernel? I was of the impression that one can't do that.
> > But may be I am missing something.
> 
> I think the idea was that we would only look at the new params if a new
> flags was set, and otherwise it would behave as the old syscall.
> 
> Regardless, I think it makes far more sense to add a kexec_file_load2
> syscall if we're going to modify the prototype at all. It's a rather
> different proposition to the existing syscall, and needs to be treated
> as such.

I do not think it is worth to add another syscall for extra fds.
We have open(2) as an example for different numbers of arguments
already.

Thanks
Dave