linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] uapi: get rid of STATX

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: <CAJfpeguM-TU=nxj=T4t1DshniiEFBGq6yo+qo7Cx1QDnoNocMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:32:08 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] uapi: get rid of STATX_ALL

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * Miklos Szeredi:
>
>>  #define STATX__RESERVED              0x80000000U     /* Reserved for future struct statx expansion */
>
> What about this?  Isn't it similar to STATX_ALL in the sense that we
> don't know yet what it will mean?

Kernel will return -EINVAL if request_mask contains STATX__RESERVED,
so it's definitely different from other flag values.

Specifying this in the UAPI sort of implies that other flag values
will *not* need a struct statx expansion, so it's safe to pass in any
random value not containing STATX__RESERVED on any past or future
kernel and it will not write beyond the current struct statx boundary.
Not sure if that's a useful thing or not, but it's not actively
harmful, like the STATX_ALL flag.

Thanks,
Miklos