linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] openat2: minor uapi cleanups

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]

Date:   Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:41:17 +1100
From:   Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        David Laight <david.laight@...lab.com>, dev@...ncontainers.org,
        containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] openat2: minor uapi cleanups

On 2019-12-19, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 09:55:28PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > While openat2(2) is still not yet in Linus's tree, we can take this
> > opportunity to iron out some small warts that weren't noticed earlier:
> > 
> >   * A fix was suggested by Florian Weimer, to separate the openat2
> >     definitions so glibc can use the header directly. I've put the
> >     maintainership under VFS but let me know if you'd prefer it belong
> >     ot the fcntl folks.
> > 
> >   * Having heterogenous field sizes in an extensible struct results in
> >     "padding hole" problems when adding new fields (in addition the
> >     correct error to use for non-zero padding isn't entirely clear ).
> >     The simplest solution is to just copy clone(3)'s model -- always use
> >     u64s. It will waste a little more space in the struct, but it
> >     removes a possible future headache.
> 
> Am I imagining things or did I get the same patch series twice?

Not unless it's a coincidence -- I accidentally ran

  % git send-email *.patch [some flags] *.patch

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)