linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] add unique mount ID

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: <CAJfpeguJ+H7HkZOgZrJ7VmTY_GhQ5uqueZH+DL9EuEeX5kgXQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2023 11:43:50 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
        Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] add unique mount ID

On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 11:36, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > Yes, one concern is that humans confuse the old and the new ID.
> >
> > I also think it makes sense to allow the new interfaces to look up the
> > mount based on either the old or the new ID.   But I could be wrong
>
> Hm, mount id recycling may happen so quickly that for service restarts
> with a lot of mounts this becomes mostly useless...

Agreed.  The old ID is mostly useful for human interaction.

>
> > there, since that might encourage bad code.  Maybe the new interface
> > should only use take the new ID, which means no mixed use of
> > /proc/$$/mountinfo and statmnt/listmnt.
>
> ... so I think that is indeed the better way of doing things. There's no
> need to encourage userspace to mix both identifiers.

Okay.

But I'd still leave the 2^32 offset for human confusion avoidance.

Thanks,
Miklos