[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <15fb406a-0f12-4708-abe7-91a464fecbc2@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 17:46:59 +0200
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Miklos Szeredi" <miklos@...redi.hu>,
"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>,
"Alexander Viro" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Christian Brauner" <christian@...uner.io>,
"Amir Goldstein" <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] add statmnt(2) syscall
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023, at 15:20, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 15:19, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> > How about passing u64 *?
>>
>> struct statmnt_req {
>> __u64 mnt_id;
>> __u64 mask;
>> };
>>
>> ?
>
> I'm fine with that as well.
Yes, this looks fine for the compat syscall purpose.
Not sure if losing visibility of the mnt_id and mask in ptrace
or seccomp/bpf is a problem though.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists