netdev - Re: fanotify as syscalls

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: <200909161330.26815.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:30:26 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	alan@...ux.intel.com, hch@...radead.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: fanotify as syscalls

On Tuesday 15 September 2009, Eric Paris wrote:
> fanotify_modify_mark_at() --- like inotify_add_watch and rm_watch
> fanotify_modify_mark_fd() --- same but with an fd instead of a path

I think these two can be merged into one without adding complexity,
in the same way that sys_utimensat can take a file descriptor or
a path or both.

> fanotify_response() --- userspace tells the kernel what to do if requested/allowed
>    (could probably be done using write() to the fanotify fd)
> fanotify_exclude() --- a horrid syscall which might be better as an ioctl since it isn't strongly typed....

Please don't use an ioctl here. While ioctl is fine for character devices
and sort of fine for sockets, I think it would be very bad style to use
it on file descriptors that you get back from specialized syscalls like
fanotify_init. Do one or the other, but do it consistently.

Why is it not strongly typed anyway? Something like

int fanotify_ignore_sb(int fanotify_fd, unsigned int flag,
                       long f_type, fsid_t f_fsid);

would be type safe, although I think it would be better to only handle
one of the two cases. Can you think of a case that you can't handle if
you have to decide between them and only do one interface (f_type or fsid)?

	Arnd <><
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html