[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzknfBLjg4-pRSCUeBFY3DWq04zX3PPyc949M0OygHktw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:05:49 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/32] vfs: syscall: Add fsopen() to prepare for
superblock creation [ver #9]
Yeah, Andy is right that we should *not* make "write()" have side effects.
Use it to queue things by all means, but not "do" things. Not unless
there's a very sane security model.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:59 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
> I think the right solution is one of:
>
> (a) Pass a netlink-formatted blob to fsopen() and do the whole thing in one syscall. I don’t mean using netlink sockets — just the nlattr format. Or you could use a different format. The part that matters is using just one syscall to do the whole thing.
Please no. Not another nasty marshalling thing.
> (b) Keep the current structure but use a new syscall instead of write().
>
> (c) Keep using write() but literally just buffer the data. Then have a new syscall to commit it. In other words, replace “x” with a syscall and call all the fs_context_operations helpers in that context instead of from write().
But yeah, b-or-c sounds fine.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists