linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] io_uring: use an enumeration for io_uring

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: <20200827071127.iqq4gt3d5bpsq4xu@steredhat.lan>
Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:11:27 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] io_uring: use an enumeration for
 io_uring_register(2) opcodes

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:52:38PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2020, at 1:43 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 05:32:52PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> >> The enumeration allows us to keep track of the last
> >> io_uring_register(2) opcode available.
> >> 
> >> Behaviour and opcodes names don't change.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
> >> ---
> >> include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h | 27 ++++++++++++++++-----------
> >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> >> index d65fde732518..cdc98afbacc3 100644
> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> >> @@ -255,17 +255,22 @@ struct io_uring_params {
> >> /*
> >>  * io_uring_register(2) opcodes and arguments
> >>  */
> >> -#define IORING_REGISTER_BUFFERS		0
> >> -#define IORING_UNREGISTER_BUFFERS	1
> >> -#define IORING_REGISTER_FILES		2
> >> -#define IORING_UNREGISTER_FILES		3
> >> -#define IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD		4
> >> -#define IORING_UNREGISTER_EVENTFD	5
> >> -#define IORING_REGISTER_FILES_UPDATE	6
> >> -#define IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD_ASYNC	7
> >> -#define IORING_REGISTER_PROBE		8
> >> -#define IORING_REGISTER_PERSONALITY	9
> >> -#define IORING_UNREGISTER_PERSONALITY	10
> >> +enum {
> >> +	IORING_REGISTER_BUFFERS,
> > 
> > Actually, one *tiny* thought. Since this is UAPI, do we want to be extra
> > careful here and explicitly assign values? We can't change the meaning
> > of a number (UAPI) but we can add new ones, etc? This would help if an
> > OP were removed (to stop from triggering a cascade of changed values)...
> > 
> > for example:
> > 
> > enum {
> > 	IORING_REGISTER_BUFFERS = 0,
> > 	IORING_UNREGISTER_BUFFERS = 1,
> > 	...
> 
> Definitely that is preferred, IMHO, for enums used as part of UAPI,
> as it avoids accidental changes to the values, and it also makes it
> easier to see what the actual values are.
> 

Sure, I agree.

I'll put the values in the enumerations in the v5.

Thanks,
Stefano