linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] uapi, vfs: Change the mount API UAPI [ver #2]

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]

Message-ID: <16C5B24F-2D1B-4AD3-BFEC-38BE8FE6AE1A@brauner.io>
Date:   Fri, 17 May 2019 09:27:14 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC:     dhowells@...hat.com, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] uapi, vfs: Change the mount API UAPI [ver #2]

On May 17, 2019 9:13:26 AM GMT+02:00, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
>
>> If you still prefer to have cloexec flags
>> for the 4 new syscalls then yes,
>> if they could at least all have the same name
>> (FSMOUNT_CLOEXEC?) that would be good.
>
>They don't all have the same value (see OPEN_TREE_CLOEXEC).
>
>Note that I also don't want to blindly #define them to O_CLOEXEC
>because it's
>not necessarily the same value on all arches.  Currently it can be
>02000000,
>010000000 or 0x400000 for instance, which means that if it's sharing a
>mask
>with other flags, at least three bits have to be reserved for it or we
>have to
>have arch-dependent bit juggling.


Ugh. Right, I forgot about that entirely.

Christian

>
>One thing I like about your approach of just making them O_CLOEXEC by
>default
>and removing the constants is that it avoids this mess entirely.
>
>David