[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o7g4xlmb.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2023 09:20:28 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
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>,
Matthew House <mattlloydhouse@...il.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] add listmount(2) syscall
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> writes:
>> Why use struct __mount_arg (or struct mnt_id_req :) here rather than
>> just passing in the mount ID directly? You don't use the request_mask
>
> Please see Arnd's detailed summary here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/44631c05-6b8a-42dc-b37e-df6776baa5d4@app.fastmail.com
Ah, makes sense, I'd missed that.
Given this, though, it seems like maybe sys_listmount() should enforce
that req->request_mask==0 ?
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists