linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] binder: Add default binder devices through binderfs when configured

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: <20190809145016.GB16262@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Aug 2019 16:50:16 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@...gle.com>
Cc:     Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] binder: Add default binder devices through
 binderfs when configured

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:27:25PM -0700, Hridya Valsaraju wrote:
> Currently, since each binderfs instance needs its own
> private binder devices, every time a binderfs instance is
> mounted, all the default binder devices need to be created
> via the BINDER_CTL_ADD IOCTL.

Wasn't that a design goal of binderfs?

> This patch aims to
> add a solution to automatically create the default binder
> devices for each binderfs instance that gets mounted.
> To achieve this goal, when CONFIG_ANDROID_BINDERFS is set,
> the default binder devices specified by CONFIG_ANDROID_BINDER_DEVICES
> are created in each binderfs instance instead of global devices
> being created by the binder driver.

This is going to change how things work today, what is going to break
because of this change?

I don't object to this, except for the worry of changing the default
behavior.

thanks,

greg k-h