[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4f38a974-d5a0-87e6-3db3-647e3cc32c0e@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:18:28 +0100
From: Boyan Karatotev <boian4o1@...il.com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Boyan Karatotev <boyan.karatotev@....com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
amit.kachhap@....com, vincenzo.frascino@....com,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] kselftests/arm64: add PAuth test for whether exec()
changes keys
On 07/09/2020 11:27 am, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 11:20:25AM +0100, Boyan Karatotev wrote:
>> On 02/09/2020 18:00, Dave Martin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 02:16:05PM +0100, Boyan Karatotev wrote:
>>>> +int exec_sign_all(struct signatures *signed_vals, size_t val)
>>>> +{
>>>
>>> Could popen(3) be used here?
>>>
>>> Fork-and-exec is notoriously fiddly, so it's preferable to use a library
>>> function to do it where applicable.I would love to, but the worker needs a bidirectional channel and popen
>> only gives a unidirectional stream.
>
> Ah, fair point.
>
> Would it help if you created an additional pipe before calling popen()?
>
> May not be worth it, though. For one thing, wiring that extra pipe to
> stdin or stdout in the child process would require some extra work...
Well, I probably could, but I doubt the result would be any better. I
agree that I'm not sure the effort is worth it and would rather keep it
the same.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists