[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190528100802.sdfqtwrowrmulpml@brauner.io>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 12:08:04 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Adrian Reber <adrian@...as.de>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fork: add clone6
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:27:08PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:42 AM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> >
> > Hm, still pondering whether having one unsigned int argument passed
> > through registers that captures all the flags from the old clone() would
> > be a good idea.
>
> That sounds like a reasonable thing to do.
>
> Maybe we could continue to call the old flags CLONE_XYZ and continue
> to pass them in as "flags" argument, and then we have CLONE_EXT_XYZ
> flags for a new 64-bit flag field that comes in through memory in the
> new clone_args thing?
Hm. I think I'll try a first version without an additional register
flags argument. And here's why: I'm not sure it buys us a lot especially
if we're giving up on making this convenient for seccomp anyway.
And with that out of the way (at least for the moment) I would really
like to make this interface consistent. But we can revisit this when I
have the code.
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists