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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220112160935.GA3684@lst.de>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 17:09:35 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, 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 01:08:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > 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.

Yes.

> > 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

So should we go ahead with the series as-is?  Or respin it?  Or add
the above change ontop?