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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 03:57:45 +0100 From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>, Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>, linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-aio@...ck.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org, LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 05:14:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > 2) have you counted the syscalls that do and do not need that? > > No. Might be illuminating... > > 3) how many of those realistically *can* be unified with their > > compat counterparts? [hint: ioctl(2) cannot] > > There would be no requirement to unify anything. The idea is that > we'd get rid of all the global state flags. _What_ global state flags? When you have separate SYSCALL_DEFINE3(ioctl...) and COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE3(ioctl...), there's no flags at all, global or local. They only come into the play when you try to share the same function for both, right on the top level. > For ioctl, we'd have a new file_operation: > > long ioctl(struct file *, unsigned int, unsigned long, enum syscall_arch); > > I'm not saying this is easy, but I think it's possible and the result > would be more obviously correct than what we have now. No, it would not. Seriously, from time to time a bit of RTFS before grand proposals turns out to be useful.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists