On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:01 +0100 Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > I really would like to avoid that because it will just mean that someone
> > else will abuse that function and then make an argument why we should
> > export the other function.
> >
> > I think it would be ok if we required that unix support is built in
> > because it's not unprecedented either and we're not breaking anything.
> > Bpf has the same requirement:
> >
> > #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_UNIX) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL)
> > struct bpf_unix_iter_state {
> > struct seq_net_private p;
> > unsigned int cur_sk;
> > unsigned int end_sk;
> > unsigned int max_sk;
> > struct sock **batch;
> > bool st_bucket_done;
> > };
> >
> > and
> >
> > #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_UNIX) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) && defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS)
> > DEFINE_BPF_ITER_FUNC(unix, struct bpf_iter_meta *meta,
> > struct unix_sock *unix_sk, uid_t uid)
Don't think we should bring BPF into arguments about uAPI consistency :S
> Some data points: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, Archlinux all
> ship with CONFIG_UNIX=y, so a missing SCM_PIDFD in unlikely to have a
> widespread impact, and if it does, it might encourage someone to
> review their kconfig.
IDK how you can argue that everyone sets UNIX to =y so hiding SCM_PIDFD
is fine and at the same time not be okay with making UNIX a bool :S
> As mentioned on the v5 thread, we are waiting for this API to get the
> userspace side sorted (systemd/dbus/dbus-broker/polkit), so I'd be
> really grateful if we could start with the simplest and most
> conservative approach (which seems to be the current one in v6 to me),
> and then eventually later decide whether to export more functions, or
> to deprecate CONFIG_UNIX=m, or something else entirely, as that
> doesn't really affect the shape of the UAPI, just the details of its
> availability. Thank you.
Just throw in a patch to make UNIX a bool and stop arguing then.
