linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] fork: add clone3

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: <20190604104939.e7qhojiarfb2m3rh@brauner.io>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jun 2019 12:49:40 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        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 v2 1/2] fork: add clone3

On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:36:24PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:44 PM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> 
> > +
> > +#ifdef __ARCH_WANT_SYS_CLONE
> > +asmlinkage long sys_clone3(struct clone_args __user *uargs, size_t size);
> > +#endif
> 
> I would leave it outside of __ARCH_WANT_SYS_CLONE, as far
> as I can tell the only reason for that #ifdef is so architectures that
> have their own sys_clone implementation can opt out of the generic
> one, but we don't want that for new syscalls.
> 
> In fact, I'd prefer to drop the symbol entirely and have a different
> symbol with the opposite meaning such as
> __ARCH_NONSTANDARD_SYS_CLONE that only gets
> selected by sparc, ia64 and m68k. That should be a separate
> patch though, and I'm not asking you to do it, unless you
> want to clean up a little more.

I am totally up for this but I would prefer if we land clone3() in the
5.3 merge window and then for 5.3 rc{2,3} do the cleanups that David and
you suggested.
This leaves this patchset lean and easy to review.

Christian