linux-kernel - Modifying the vboxguest ioctl API (Was: Re: [vbox-dev] [RFC] VGDrvCommonIoCtl: Add f32bit flag argument)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:48:00 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     "Knut St. Osmundsen" <knut.osmundsen@...cle.com>,
        vbox-dev@...tualbox.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Modifying the vboxguest ioctl API (Was: Re: [vbox-dev] [RFC]
 VGDrvCommonIoCtl: Add f32bit flag argument)

Hi,

On 14-08-17 14:19, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 14-08-17 13:43, Knut St. Osmundsen wrote:
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>> the other platforms also have KPIs or similar constructs for figuring
>> out whether the client process issuing the I/O controls is a 32-bit or
>> 64-bit one.  However, using the VBOXGUEST_IOCTL_FLAG set to 0 or 0x80 if
>> 32-bit or 64-bit was a less complex (+faster(+safer)) way of deal with
>> this.  The host driver does this as well.  I would like the structure of
>> the two to be as similar as possible.
>>
>> I'm not very keen to adding linux specific clutter (f32Bit + #ifndef
>> RT_OS_LINUX) to the common code just because you can do it differently
>> only Linux.  Sorry.  Want minimal platform specific cruft in common
>> code.  Hope you understand.
> 
> OK and yes I understand.
> 
>> PS. I noticed in the Linux kernel RFC email thread that we've agreed to
>> freeze the I/O control ABI.  We cannot guarantee that's it's 100% frozen
>> at this point, since the generic status code fix (getting rid of that
>> ioctl non-zero return value) hasn't been done yet.  I will see if I can
>> squeeze it in later this week.
> 
> I had already decided to just live with the positive return for vbox
> host status codes, but if you want this changed for other reasons, then yes
> now would be the time to do that. But you don't have to do it just on
> my account.

I plan to post a v2 of the vboxguest driver for upstream tomorrow. Given
the above I will mark it as a RFC for now. Anychance you can wrap this up
soonish so that I can post a non RFC version with the final ABI upstream ?

Regards,

Hans