On 2019-09-05, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:19:22AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > A common pattern for syscall extensions is increasing the size of a
> > struct passed from userspace, such that the zero-value of the new fields
> > result in the old kernel behaviour (allowing for a mix of userspace and
> > kernel vintages to operate on one another in most cases). This is done
> > in both directions -- hence two helpers -- though it's more common to
> > have to copy user space structs into kernel space.
> >
> > Previously there was no common lib/ function that implemented
> > the necessary extension-checking semantics (and different syscalls
> > implemented them slightly differently or incompletely[1]). A future
> > patch replaces all of the common uses of this pattern to use the new
> > copy_struct_{to,from}_user() helpers.
> >
> > [1]: For instance {sched_setattr,perf_event_open,clone3}(2) all do do
> > similar checks to copy_struct_from_user() while rt_sigprocmask(2)
> > always rejects differently-sized struct arguments.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I would probably split this out into a separate patchset. It can very
> well go in before openat2(). Thoughts?
Yeah, I'll split this and the related patches out -- though I will admit
I'm not sure how you're supposed to deal with multiple independent
patchsets that depend on each other. How will folks reviewing openat2(2)
know to include the lib/struct_user.c changes?
Also, whose tree should it go through?
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
