linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] fs: add mount

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: <20200719171054.GK2786714@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Sun, 19 Jul 2020 18:10:54 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] fs: add mount_setattr()

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 06:14:11PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:

> mount_setattr() can be expected to grow over time and is designed with
> extensibility in mind. It follows the extensible syscall pattern we have
> used with other syscalls such as openat2(), clone3(),
> sched_{set,get}attr(), and others.

I.e. it's a likely crap insertion vector; any patches around that thing
will require the same level of review as addition of a brand new syscall.
And they will be harder to spot - consider the likely subjects for such
patches and compare to open addition of a new syscall...