linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/17] watch_queue: Implement mount topology and attribute change notifications [ver #5]

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:   Mon, 03 Aug 2020 22:30:26 +0800
From:   Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, andres@...razel.de,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, dray@...hat.com,
        Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/17] watch_queue: Implement mount topology and
 attribute change notifications [ver #5]

On Mon, 2020-08-03 at 13:31 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
> 
> > > I'm changing it so that the fields are 64-bit, but initialised
> > > with the
> > > existing mount ID in the notifications set.  The fsinfo set
> > > changes that
> > > to a unique ID.  I'm tempted to make the unique IDs start at
> > > UINT_MAX+1 to
> > > disambiguate them.
> > 
> > Mmm ... so what would I use as a mount id that's not used, like
> > NULL
> > for strings?
> 
> Zero is skipped, so you could use that.
> 
> > I'm using -1 now but changing this will mean I need something
> > different.
> 
> It's 64-bits, so you're not likely to see it reach -1, even if it
> does start
> at UINT_MAX+1.

Ha, either or, I don't think it will be a problem, there's
bound to be a few changes so the components using this will
need to change a bit before it's finalized, shouldn't be a
big deal I think. At least not for me and shouldn't be much
for libmount either I think.

Ian