linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2] fhandle: expose u64 mount id to name_to_handle

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]

Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 12:28:44 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, 
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, 
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, 
	Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] fhandle: expose u64 mount id to
 name_to_handle_at(2)

> I don't understand what you mean.  If we hand out file handles with

I don't think adding another highly privileged interface in opposition
to exposing the mount id is warranted. The new mount id exposure patch
is a performance improvement for existing use-cases to let userspace
avoid additional system calls. Because as Aleksa showed in the commit
message there's ways to make this race-free right now. The patch hasn't
gained any Acks from Amir or Jeff so it's obviously not going to get
merged. So really, I don't want another interface that goes from
arbitrary superblock to file hidden behind yet another global capability
check.