On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:08 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:27:08PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:42 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hm, still pondering whether having one unsigned int argument passed > > > through registers that captures all the flags from the old clone() would > > > be a good idea. > > > > That sounds like a reasonable thing to do. > > > > Maybe we could continue to call the old flags CLONE_XYZ and continue > > to pass them in as "flags" argument, and then we have CLONE_EXT_XYZ > > flags for a new 64-bit flag field that comes in through memory in the > > new clone_args thing? > > Hm. I think I'll try a first version without an additional register > flags argument. And here's why: I'm not sure it buys us a lot especially > if we're giving up on making this convenient for seccomp anyway. > And with that out of the way (at least for the moment) I would really > like to make this interface consistent. But we can revisit this when I > have the code. > Seems reasonable. Once the interface is nailed down, we can see if it makes sense to break out some flags into a register. I would guess that all the unsharing flags are a good candidate.
