linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] uapi: always define F_GETLK64/F_SETLK64/F

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:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:08:24 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] uapi: always define F_GETLK64/F_SETLK64/F_SETLKW64 in fcntl.h

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:15 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-01-12 at 09:28 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 8:56 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> >
> > Exactly, that is the tradeoff, which is why I'd like the flock maintainers
> > to say which way they prefer. We can either do it more correctly (hiding
> > the constants from user space when they are not usable), or with less
> > change (removing the incorrect #ifdef). Either way sounds reasonable
> > to me, I mainly care that this is explained in the changelog and that the
> > maintainers are aware of the two options.
> >
>
> I don't have a strong opinion here. If we were taking symbols away that
> were previously visible to userland it would be one thing, but since
> we're just adding symbols that may not have been there before, this
> seems less likely to break anything.

Changing

#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT

to

#if __BITS_PER_LONG==32 || defined(__KERNEL__),

would take symbols away, since the CONFIG_64BIT macro is never
set in user space.

> I probably lean toward Christoph's original solution instead of keeping
> the conditional definitions. It's hard to imagine there are many
> programs that care whether these other symbols are defined or not.
>
> You can add this to the original patch:
>
> Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>

Sounds good, thanks

         Arnd