[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yv3c9jYkyWfe2zMM@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 08:32:22 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@...linux.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
zhangyi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] userfaultfd: add /dev/userfaultfd for fine
grained access control
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:26:38AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 02:47:25PM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> > +static int userfaultfd_dev_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
>
> If your open does nothing, no need to list it here at all, right?
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static long userfaultfd_dev_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long flags)
> > +{
> > + if (cmd != USERFAULTFD_IOC_NEW)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + return new_userfaultfd(flags);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct file_operations userfaultfd_dev_fops = {
> > + .open = userfaultfd_dev_open,
> > + .unlocked_ioctl = userfaultfd_dev_ioctl,
> > + .compat_ioctl = userfaultfd_dev_ioctl,
>
> Why do you need to set compat_ioctl? Shouldn't it just default to the
> existing one?
>
> And why is this a device node at all? Shouldn't the syscall handle all
> of this (to be honest, I didn't read anything but the misc code, sorry.)
Ah, read the documentation now. Seems you want to make it easier for
people to get permissions on a system. Doesn't seem wise, but hey, it's
not my feature...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists