linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] file: export functions for binder module

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: <20180730202840.GA14693@mailbox.org>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 2018 22:28:40 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        arve@...roid.com, tkjos@...roid.com, maco@...roid.com,
        rlove@...gle.com, ben@...adent.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] file: export functions for binder module

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 01:19:47PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:12:24PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > I don't expect this patch to be mergeable but rather to kick-off a
> > > discussion if we can either simply export them as they are or how we can
> > > get supportable exports that allow access to struct files_struct.
> > 
> > Maybe that wasn't obvious from the first message. Is there any way we
> > can come up with a way to have versions of these functions that you
> > would be fine with exporting?
> > The point is that otherwise we would have to either duplicate the code
> > or come up with something way more complex. If you have any pointer that
> > would already help.
> 
> He said in the first reply this should probably be using an anonfd.
> If you do that, I think all four of these exports go away.

I try and see if that is possible.

> 
> And there was really no reason to post each of the four exports as
> separate patches.  That just makes review harder on everyone.

Sorry about that. It usually depends on the preferences of each
maintainer how fine-grained such minor changes should be.

Christian